State v. Gibbs
Decision Date | 02 March 2016 |
Docket Number | Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-121,Appellate Case No. 2013-001297 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | The State, Respondent, v. Leroy Clifton Gibbs, III, Appellant. |
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.
Appeal From Sumter County
W. Jeffrey Young, Circuit Court Judge
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mary Williams Leddon, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Ernest Adolphus Finney, III, of Sumter, for Respondent.
Leroy Clifton Gibbs, III, appeals his convictions for trafficking cocaine base more than 10 grams but less than 28 grams, manufacturing cocaine base, and possession with the intent to distribute cocaine, arguing the trial court erred when it (1) arbitrarily denied his motion to represent himself at trial; (2) admitted evidence Gibbs allegedly distributed crack cocaine on three prior occasions at the residence where he was arrested; and (3) denied his motion for a mistrial. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court arbitrarily denied Gibbs's motion to represent himself at trial: State v. Samuel, 414 S.C. 206, 211, 777 S.E.2d 398, 401 (Ct. App. 2015) ( ; State v. Starnes, 388 S.C. 590, 600, 698 S.E.2d 604, 610 (2010) (); State v. Fuller, 337 S.C. 236, 241, 523 S.E.2d 168, 170 (1999) () ; Samuel, 414 S.C. at 212, 777 S.E.2d at 401 (); id. .
2. As to whether the trial court erred when it admitted evidence Gibbs allegedly distributed crack cocaine on three prior occasions at the residence where he was arrested: State v. Stokes, 381 S.C. 390, 398, 673 S.E.2d 434, 438 (2009) ; State v. McEachern, 399 S.C. 125, 137, 731 S.E.2d 604, 610 (Ct. App. 2012) (); State v. Culbreath, 377 S.C. 326, 333, 659 S.E.2d 268, 272 (Ct. App. 2008) (); State v. King, 334 S.C. 504, 512, 514 S.E.2d 578, 582 (1999) ; State v. King, 349 S.C. 142, 153, 561 S.E.2d 640, 645 (Ct. App. 2002) (); State v. Cheeseboro, 346 S.C. 526, 548, 552 S.E.2d 300, 311 (2001) (); King, 349 S.C. at 153, 561 S.E.2d at 645 ; Stokes, 381 S.C. at 404 n.14, 673 S.E.2d at 441 n.14 ; State v. Spears, 403 S.C. 247, 253, 742 S.E.2d 878, 881 (Ct. App. 2013) ; King, 349 S.C. at 156, 561 S.E.2d at 647 ("Though an on-the-record Rule 403 analysis is required, this [c]ourt will not reverse the conviction if the trial comments concerning the matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial