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,
George Salisbury, Appellant.
Appeal From Berkeley County
Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-214
Submitted March 1, 2012 – Filed March 28, 2012
Appellate Defender Elizabeth Franklin-Best, 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 Mark Farthing, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: George Salisbury appeals his convictions for assault on a correctional officer, taking of a hostage by an inmate, and first degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing the trial court erred in admitting a letter in which Salisbury explains how the assault will take place. Salisbury argues the handwriting in the letter was not authenticated, irrelevant, and inadmissible as Lyle evidence. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Anderson, 386 S.C. 120, 126, 687 S.E.2d 35, 38 (2009) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
 State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406, 118 S.E. 803 (1923).
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
 In his brief, Salisbury also makes the statement that the letter "interjected improper character evidence into [Salisbury's] trial." Salisbury makes no argument nor does he cite any law in support of this conclusory statement. Accordingly, this argument has been abandoned. See State v. Tyndall, 336 S.C. 8, 16, 518 S.E.2d 278, 282 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Conclusory arguments constitute an abandonment of the issue on appeal.").