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.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
Clyde Leroy McBride, Appellant.
Appeal From Richland County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-357
Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed July 12, 2010
Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe; and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Clyde Leroy McBride appeals his convictions for first-degree burglary, kidnapping, and armed robbery. On appeal, McBride argues the State failed to prove a complete chain of custody for DNA evidence because it failed to establish a complete chain of custody for the vehicle in which his DNA was discovered. The State was not required to prove the chain of custody for the vehicle because it possesses unique identifiable characteristics. See State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 134, 620 S.E.2d 737, 741-42 (2005). The State introduced evidence that the samples used for DNA testing were taken from the victim's stolen vehicle. No further authentication was required. Accordingly, because the State proved the chain of custody from the time the samples were collected from the vehicle until they were tested for DNA, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); see State v. Carter, 344 S.C. 419, 424, 544 S.E.2d 835, 837 (2001) (noting a complete chain of custody must be established, as far as practicable, tracing possession from the time a sample is collected until the final custodian by whom it is analyzed).
FEW, C.J., THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.