Rogers v. State, 3760.
| Decision Date | 15 March 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 3760.,3760. |
| Citation | 358 S.C. 266,594 S.E.2d 278 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Brandon Heath ROGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
Cheree Gillespie, of Clemson, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, of Columbia; Solicitor Druanne Dykes White, of Anderson, for Respondent.
Brandon Heath Rogers appeals his conviction of criminal domestic violence (CDV), arguing the circuit court erred by (1) upholding the decision of the municipal court, which was the trial court, finding him guilty of CDV; (2) failing to hold that the municipal court erred by not granting a directed verdict to him; and (3) failing to file an order setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(a), SCRCP. We affirm.
On the morning of March 24, 2002, Brandon's wife, Rebecca Lynn Rogers, went to the Westminster Police Department to report an incident of CDV allegedly perpetrated by Brandon against her. According to Rebecca's written and signed statement, Brandon and she argued the previous night while riding in their car. Rebecca told police that while they were arguing, Brandon "was smacking me in my face and in my head." Later, when they arrived at a gas station, Rebecca stated Brandon "smashed my face there." The couple then drove to their home, where Rebecca claimed in her written statement to police that Brandon "busted my windshield," "smacked me in the head," and "punched me in the side of the stomach." According to Rebecca's statement, when the couple entered their house, Brandon made Rebecca "get into bed," "dared me out with a knife," "hit me again," and told her he would "hurt me really bad" if she contacted law enforcement. Among other things, Rebecca stated that Brandon "threaten[ed] to kill my parents and my brother."
At trial before the municipal court on May 9, 2002, Rebecca confirmed she had written and signed the statement. Brandon's attorney initially objected to having Rebecca read the statement into evidence. However, she agreed to allow Rebecca read the statement into evidence "sentence by sentence[,] and at the end of each sentence" allow Rebecca to acknowledge whether she made that portion of the statement, and make additional comments about that portion of the statement.
Rebecca proceeded to read the statement into evidence, frequently reacting to portions of the statement with claims that she did not remember the incidents cited in the report. However, when she read a sentence that stated Brandon had "smacked" her at the gas station, she did not refute its accuracy or question her memory of the incident. Among other things, she also acknowledged that Brandon hit her "in the side" but claimed that his action was accidental. Furthermore, when asked under cross-examination whether Brandon "threatened [her] with a knife," she responded,
At the trial's conclusion, the municipal court found Brandon guilty of CDV, noting that he found Rebecca's signed and written statement more credible than her testimony in court. Brandon received a time-served sentence, which amounted to twenty days in jail.
Brandon then appealed to the circuit court, only "upon the grounds of inadequate evidence to support a conviction and utilization of improper evidence." Following a hearing, the circuit court affirmed the municipal court. Brandon then filed a Rule 52, SCRCP, motion seeking a written order from the circuit court that enumerated its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The circuit court denied the motion, rejecting Brandon's efforts to invoke civil procedural rules in a criminal appeal. This appeal follows.
Brandon argues the municipal court erred in finding him guilty of CDV. We are constrained to disagree, for the simple reason that Brandon seeks to pursue specious arguments and to assign error to matters that were not raised in the lower courts.
Brandon was charged with CDV under S.C. Code Ann. § 16-25-20 (Supp.2001), which provides that "[i]t is unlawful to: (1) cause physical harm or injury to a person's own household member, (2) offer or attempt to cause physical harm or injury to a person's own household member with apparent present ability under circumstances reasonably creating fear of imminent peril." Here, Brandon does not allege an error of law, but instead argues that evidence in the record fails to support either the municipal court's conclusion of his guilt or the circuit court's affirmance of his conviction. Brandon clearly misconstrues our standard of review, for in criminal appeals we sit to review errors of law only. See City of Landrum v. Sarratt, 352 S.C. 139, 141, 572 S.E.2d 476, 477 (Ct.App.2002) ( ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The City of Cayce v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co.
...raised to it by an appropriate exception. City of Rock Hill v. Suchenski, 374 S.C. 12, 646 S.E.2d 879 (2007); Rogers v. State, 358 S.C. 266, 594 S.E.2d 278 (Ct.App.2004); City of Landrum v. Sarratt, 352 S.C. 139, 572 S.E.2d 476 (Ct.App.2002); see also S.C.Code Ann. § 14–25–105 (Supp.2009) (......
-
State v. Gordon
...in fact finding.’ ” City of Greer v. Humble, 402 S.C. 609, 618, 742 S.E.2d 15, 20 (Ct.App.2013) (quoting Rogers v. State, 358 S.C. 266, 270, 594 S.E.2d 278, 280 (Ct.App.2004)). Because the circuit court engaged in fact finding and the magistrate never made such findings due to its misconstr......
-
State v. Taylor
...the circuit court erred in making factual findings because it was sitting in an appellate capacity. Rogers v. State, 358 S.C. 266, 270, 594 S.E.2d 278, 280 (Ct.App.2004).Suchenski, Murphy , and Gordon demonstrate the plain language of the statute does not require the video to encompass ever......
-
City of Greer v. Humble
...court's findings of fact if there is any evidence in the record which reasonably supports them. See Rogers v. State, 358 S.C. 266, 269 n. 1, 594 S.E.2d 278, 279 n. 1 (Ct.App.2004). The appellate court's review in criminal cases is limited to correcting the order of the circuit court for err......