State v. Himes, 2020-UP-178

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM:
• Parties: The State, Respondent, v. Christian Anthony Himes, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2017-000870
• Decision Date: 10 June 2020
• Docket Number: 2020-UP-178

The State, Respondent,
v.
Christian Anthony Himes, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-000870

No. 2020-UP-178

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

June 10, 2020

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.

Submitted May 1, 2020

Appeal From Dorchester County Maite Murphy, Circuit Court Judge

Appellate Defender Joanna Katherine Delany, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and Assistant Attorney General Alphonso Simon, Jr., all of Columbia, and David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of Orangeburg, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Christian Anthony Himes appeals his convictions of murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime and his sentences of life imprisonment without parole (LWOP) and five years' imprisonment. Himes argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act (the Act) and in imposing a sentence of five years' imprisonment for possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. We affirm in part and vacate in part.

1. Himes argues the trial court erred in finding he was not entitled to immunity from prosecution under the Act. We disagree.

We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining Himes failed to prove he was entitled to immunity under the Act because a reasonably prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would not have entertained the same belief that he was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death. See State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 370, 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2013) ("A claim of immunity under the Act requires a pretrial determination using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which [the appellate] court reviews under an abuse of discretion standard of review."); State v. Douglas, 411 S.C. 307, 316, 768 S.E.2d 232, 238 (Ct. App. 2014) ("[U]nder this standard, the appellate court 'does not re-evaluate the facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence but simply determines whether the trial court's ruling is supported by any evidence.'" (quoting State v. Mitchell, 382 S.C. 1, 4, 675 S.E.2d 435, 437 (2009))).

The evidence indicates the victim's primary goal was to prevent Himes from entering the victim's ex-wife's apartment, not to attack Himes. Himes agreed the only threatening thing the victim said to him the night of the fatal shooting was "you're not going into that...