State v. Housey

• Decision Date: 25 January 2011
• Docket Number: 2011-UP-026
• Parties: The State, Respondent, v. Dwayne Housey, Appellant.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent, v. Dwayne Housey, Appellant.

No. 2011-UP-026

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

January 25, 2011

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Submitted November 1, 2010

Appeal From York County Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wlilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Deborah R. J. Shupe all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

Dwayne Housey was convicted of trafficking cocaine in an amount of more than one hundred grams and was sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment. On appeal, Housey argues the trial court erred in allowing excessive conspiracy testimony into evidence to support the trafficking charge because the testimony was prejudicial character evidence that had no probative value. We affirm ^[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Mouzon, 321 S.C. 27, 32, 467 S.E.2d 122, 125 (Ct. App. 1995) ("Conspiracy is a combination or agreement between two or more persons for the purpose of accomplishing a criminal or unlawful object, or achieving by criminal or unlawful means an object that is neither criminal nor unlawful. It may be proven by the specific overt acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy, but the gravamen of the offense of conspiracy is the agreement, combination, or mutual understanding." (citations omitted)); State v. Wilson, 315 S.C. 289, 294, 433 S.E.2d 864, 868 (1993) ("The State is entitled to prove the whole history of the conspiracy, from its commencement to its conclusion, as well as overt acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy since from those overt acts, an inference may be drawn as to the existence and object of the conspiracy." (citation and quotation marks omitted)); State v. Harris, 342 S.C. 191, 202, 535 S.E.2d 652, 657 (Ct. App. 2000) (holding evidence does not constitute "other crimes, wrongs or acts" under Rule 404(b), SCRE "if [the evidence] arose out of the same... series of transactions as the charged offense... [and] constituted predicate evidence necessary to provide the context to the drug distribution scheme that took place within the charged time frame." (citations omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

---------

Notes:

^[1] We decide ...