Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-562 - State v. Henry

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.

Tarus Tremaine Henry, Sr., Appellant.


Appeal From Florence County
Ralph King Anderson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-562
Heard November 3, 2011 – Filed December 13, 2011


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, 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 David Spencer; all of Columbia, and E.L. Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  This appeal arises out of Appellant Tarus Tremaine Henry, Sr.'s convictions for assault and battery with intent to kill, second degree arson, and two counts of unlawful conduct towards a child.  On appeal, Henry claims the trial court erred in:  (1) admitting into evidence his statement to police and (2) refusing to charge the jury on the lesser-included offenses of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature and attempt to burn.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 2263 (2010) (finding no evidence defendant's confession was coerced where there was no claim that police threatened him, injured him, or that defendant was in any way fearful, during a three-hour interrogation); State v. Goodwin, 384 S.C. 588, 601, 683 S.E.2d 500, 507 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The test of voluntariness is whether a defendant's will was overborne by the circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession.") (citing Dickerson v. U.S., 530 U.S. 428, 434 (2000)); State v. Gibson, 390 S.C. 347, 356, 701 S.E.2d 766, 770 (Ct. App. 2010) (finding it appropriate to decline to charge a lesser-included offense where "it very clearly appears that no evidence whatsoever exists tending to reduce the crime"); State v. Lindsey, 394 S.C. 354, 714 S.E.2d 554, 558 (Ct. App. 2011) (noting an argument is deemed abandoned on appeal when it is conclusory and made without supporting authority).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.