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,
v.
Eddie Clay Golson, Appellant.
Appeal From Lexington County
R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-246
Submitted April 2, 2012 � Filed April 25,
2012���
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Eddie Clay Golson appeals his convictions of first-degree burglary and possession of a weapon during a violent crime, arguing the circuit court erred in admitting blood evidence when the State failed to establish a sufficient chain of custody.� We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Jennings, 394 S.C. 473, 477, 716 S.E.2d 91, 93 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the [circuit] court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." (quotation marks omitted)); State v. Sweet, 374 S.C. 1, 6, 647 S.E.2d 202, 205 (2007) ("[A] party offering into evidence fungible items such as drugs or blood samples must establish a complete chain of custody as far as practicable."); id. at 7, 647 S.E.2d at 206 ("Testimony from each custodian of fungible evidence, however, is not a prerequisite to establishing a chain of custody sufficient for admissibility."); State v. Hatcher, 392 S.C. 86, 95, 708 S.E.2d 750, 755 (2011) ("The State need not establish the identity of every person handling fungible items in all circumstances; rather, the standard is whether, in the discretion of the [circuit court], the State has established the chain of custody as far as practicable. �This determination will necessarily depend on the unique factual circumstances of each case.").
AFFIRMED.
PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.