State v. Thomas

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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. Tra Vaughn Larol Thomas, Appellant. __________ Appeal From Greenville County C. Victor Pyle, Jr., Circuit Court Judge __________ Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-361 Submitted June 1, 2012 Filed June 13, 2012 __________ AFFIRMED __________ Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia,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 Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor W. Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Tra Vaughn Larol Thomas appeals his conviction of armed robbery, arguing the trial court erred and violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial by summarily excluding Thomas's family members and neighbors from the courtroom during the State's witness's testimony. Thomas maintains his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the trial court neither articulated an overriding interest in closing the courtroom nor considered all reasonable alternatives to the closure. Because Thomas did not raise this specific issue when he objected to the trial court's decision, we affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: In re Care & Treatment of Corley, 365 S.C. 252, 258, 616 S.E.2d 441, 444 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Constitutional issues, like most others, must be raised to and ruled on by the trial court to be preserved for appeal."); State v. Baker, 390 S.C. 56, 65, 700 S.E.2d 440, 444 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding constitutional claims must be raised at trial to be preserved for review); id. (holding a party may not raise one ground to the trial court and a different ground on appeal). AFFIRMED. WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.