In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,


Tremayne R. Washington, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County
Roger M. Young, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-162
Submitted February 1, 2010 – Filed February 24, 2010   


William L. Runyon, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General Walter Edgar Salter, III, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Tremayne R. Washington was convicted of murder and was sentenced to thirty years imprisonment.  He appeals asserting the trial court erred in failing to:  (1) grant a mistrial, (2) direct a verdict in his favor, and (3) "require the State to elect a theory of the case based on the indictments."  Washington also asserts error in the trial court's jury charge on "the hand of one is the hand of all" and its charge concerning malice.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 12-13, 515 S.E.2d 508, 514 (1999) (holding the decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose ruling will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion; a mistrial should not be granted unless absolutely necessary); State v. Ward, 374 S.C. 606, 612-13, 649 S.E.2d 145, 148 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding, in appeal from Washington's co-defendant Ward who was tried with Washington, isolated gang references that were not completely gratuitous did not warrant a mistrial); State v. Padgett, 354 S.C. 268, 270-271, 580 S.E.2d 159, 161 (Ct. App. 2003) (on appeal from the denial of a directed verdict, an appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State; if there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, the appellate court must find the case was properly submitted to the jury); Ward, 374 S.C. at 615, 649 S.E.2d at 150 (noting the following evidence presented to support the trial court's denial of directed verdict:  that Washington and Ward were involved in the fight with Dunmeyer; that as Dunmeyer fled, Washington threatened to kill someone that night; and that moments after that threat, Ward and Washington got into a truck from which gunfire erupted towards the vehicle in which Dunmeyer rode); State v. Serrette, 375 S.C. 650, 652, 654 S.E.2d 554, 555 (Ct. App. 2007) (stating the burden is on the appellant to provide an appellate court with an adequate record for review); Rule 210(h), SCACR (stating an appellate court need not consider any fact which does not appear in the record); State v. Brown, 362 S.C. 258, 261-62, 607 S.E.2d 93, 95 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting the law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial); Ward, 374 S.C. at 614, 649 S.E.2d at 149 (finding, after considering the evidence of Washington and Ward's actions, no error in the trial court’s charge to the jury that "the hand of one is the hand of all" as the evidence at trial supported the theory that Ward and Washington joined together to accomplish an illegal purpose, and therefore it was appropriate for the trial court to instruct the jury that if it found such a joint endeavor existed, each defendant was liable criminally for everything done by his confederate incidental to the execution of that endeavor); Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 20, 640 S.E.2d 486, 497 (Ct. App. 2006) (noting an issue raised on appeal but not argued in the brief is deemed abandoned and will not be considered by the appellate court); Mulherin-Howell v. Cobb, 362 S.C. 588, 600, 608 S.E.2d 587, 593-94 (Ct. App. 2005) (noting when an appellant fails to cite any supporting authority for his position and fails to provide any argument or makes conclusory arguments, the appellant abandons the issue on appeal); First Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (holding an issue is abandoned where the appellant fails to provide argument or supporting authority); Rule 208(b)(1)(D), SCACR (providing that an appellant's brief "shall be divided into as many parts as there are issues to be argued," and "[a]t the head of each part, the particular issue to be addressed shall be set forth in distinctive type, followed by discussion and citations of authority").[1]


HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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