Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-176 - State v. Ashe

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Grady Ashe, Appellant.


Appeal From Dorchester County
Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-176
Submitted March 1, 2011 – Filed April 18, 2011


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General A. West Lee, all of Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of Orangeburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Grady Ashe appeals his conviction for second-degree burglary, arguing the trial court erred in granting the State's Batson v. Kentucky[1] motion when the explanations given for the strikes were facially racially-neutral and when the State was not required to prove through persuasive evidence that the strikes were discriminatory.  We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Edwards, 384 S.C. 504, 509, 682 S.E.2d 820, 823 (2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) ("Often the demeanor of the challenged attorney will be the best and only evidence of discrimination, and an evaluation of the [attorney's] mind lies peculiarly within a trial judge's province.  Furthermore, a strike must be examined in light of the circumstances under which it is exercised, including an examination of the explanations offered for other strikes."); State v. Adams, 322 S.C. 114, 123, 470 S.E.2d 366, 371 (1996) ("[T]he trial court's findings regarding purposeful discrimination are entitled to great deference and are to be set aside only if clearly erroneous.").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


[1] 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

[2] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.