Filed: Nov. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Nov. 21, 2012
Summary: 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. PER CURIAM. Bryan Phillips was tried and convicted, along with his co-defendant K.C. Langford, III, for armed robbery, kidnapping, first degree burglary, and criminal conspiracy. Langford's convictions are affirmed in a published opinion issued today. State v. Langford, Op. No. 27195 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed November 21, 2012). This case presents
Summary: 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. PER CURIAM. Bryan Phillips was tried and convicted, along with his co-defendant K.C. Langford, III, for armed robbery, kidnapping, first degree burglary, and criminal conspiracy. Langford's convictions are affirmed in a published opinion issued today. State v. Langford, Op. No. 27195 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed November 21, 2012). This case presents ..
More
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.
PER CURIAM.
Bryan Phillips was tried and convicted, along with his co-defendant K.C. Langford, III, for armed robbery, kidnapping, first degree burglary, and criminal conspiracy. Langford's convictions are affirmed in a published opinion issued today. State v. Langford, Op. No. 27195 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed November 21, 2012). This case presents the same facts and raises the same questions as Langford, viz., whether Section 1-7-330 of the South Carolina Code (2005), which grants solicitors control of the General Sessions docket, violates the separation of powers doctrine, whether Phillips was denied due process because section 1-7-330 permits judge shopping, and whether he was denied his right to a speedy trial. In addition to the issues addressed in Langford, Phillips also argues the circuit court erred in qualifying the Chinese interpreter used during his trial and in not granting a mistrial due to comments made by the solicitor in closing arguments. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. Separation of Powers: Langford, supra.
2. Due Process: Id.
3. Speedy Trial: Id.
4. Interpreter Qualification: S.C. Code Ann. § 15-27-155(B) (2005) (setting forth qualifications for a foreign language interpreter)1; Melton v. Olenik, 379 S.C. 45, 54, 664 S.E.2d 487, 492 (Ct. App. 2008) (applying abuse of discretion standard to qualification of interpreter).
5. Mistrial: State v. Graddick, 345 S.C. 383, 387, 548 S.E.2d 210, 211-12 (2001) ("As a corollary of the right to remain silent, a prosecutorial comment upon a defendant's failure to testify at trial is constitutionally impermissible."); State v. Prince, 316 S.C. 57, 67, 447 S.E.2d 177, 183 (1993) (stating the decision to grant a mistrial is left to the discretion of the circuit judge); State v. Rouse, 262 S.C. 581, 585, 206 S.E.2d 873, 874 (1974) (determining that comment complained of was not actually a comment on the defendant's failure to testify).
AFFIRMED.
TOAL, C.J., BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.
PLEICONES, J., concurring in a separate opinion.
JUSTICE PLEICONES:
I concur in the result only for the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in State v. Langford, Op. No. 27195 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed November 21, 2012).
