THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.� IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Jimmy Wayne Estes, Appellant.

Appeal From Lancaster County
�J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-707
Submitted December 1, 2008 � Filed December 16, 2008���

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Attorney for Capital Appeals Robert M. Dudek, 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 Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Douglas A. Barfield, Jr., of Lancaster, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:� Jimmy Wayne Estes appeals his assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature conviction, arguing the trial court erred in denying his Batson[1] motion.� We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Shuler, 344 S.C. 604, 615, 545 S.E.2d 805, 810 (2001) (holding in an appeal from the granting or denial of a Batson motion, the appellate court gives deference to the findings of the trial court and applies a clearly erroneous standard); State v. Haigler, 334 S.C. 623, 629, 515 S.E.2d 88, 91 (1999) (stating the burden of persuading the court a Batson violation has occurred remains at all times on the party opposing the strike); State v. Adams, 322 S.C. 114, 123-124, 470 S.E.2d 366, 371-72 (1996) (setting forth the proper procedure for a Batson hearing as follows: once the proponent states a race-neutral explanation, the party challenging the strike must show the explanation is mere pretext, either by showing similarly situated members of another race were seated on the jury or that the reason given for the strike is so fundamentally implausible as to constitute mere pretext).

AFFIRMED.�

ANDERSON , HUFF, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

[1] Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

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