From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Gray

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Jan 29, 2014
Appellate Case No. 2012-213607 (S.C. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2014)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2012-213607 Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-036

01-29-2014

The State, Respondent, v. Noel Gray, Appellant.

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, both of Columbia, for Respondent.


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 Aiken County

Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge


AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, both of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Harris, 391 S.C. 539, 545, 706 S.E.2d 526, 529 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The granting of a new trial because of after-discovered evidence is not favored, and this court will affirm the trial court's denial of such a motion unless the trial court abused its discretion." (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. ("In order to warrant the granting of a new trial on the ground of after-discovered evidence, the movant must show the evidence (1) is such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) has been discovered since the trial; (3) could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) is material to the issue; and (5) is not merely cumulative or impeaching."); Rule 29(b), SCRCrimP (providing "[a] motion for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence must be made within one (1) year after the date of the actual discovery of the evidence by the defendant or after the date when the evidence could have been ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence"). AFFIRMED.

We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Gray

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Jan 29, 2014
Appellate Case No. 2012-213607 (S.C. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2014)
Case details for

State v. Gray

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. Noel Gray, Appellant.

Court:STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Jan 29, 2014

Citations

Appellate Case No. 2012-213607 (S.C. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2014)