SC Judicial Department

2010-UP-297 - State v. Jones

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,

Freddie Richard Jones, Appellant.

Appeal From York County
Ralph F. Cothran, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.� 2010-UP-297
Submitted May 3, 2010 � Filed June 1, 2010�

AFFIRMED

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,

and Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:� Freddie Richard Jones appeals his convictions for second-degree burglary, grand larceny, and violation of the South Carolina Education Lottery Act, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.� We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following controlling authorities:� S.C. Code. Ann. � 16-11-312(B)(2) (2003) ("A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if the person enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime therein, and . . . [t]he burglary is committed by a person with a prior record of two or more convictions for burglary or housebreaking or a combination of both."); State v. Cheatham, 349 S.C. 101, 109-10, 561 S.E.2d 618, 623 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding the trial court did not err in denying defendant's request to limit the State to proof of only the "nighttime" element of first-degree burglary);� State v. Simmons, 352 S.C. 342, 358, 573 S.E.2d 856, 865 (Ct. App. 2002) (finding the trial court did not err in admitting defendant's prior burglary and housebreaking convictions even when the defendant was willing to stipulate to the "nighttime" element of first-degree burglary).�

AFFIRMED.

KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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