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.

Horace Abney, Jr., Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County
�C. Victor Pyle, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.� 2010-UP-414
Submitted September 1, 2010 � Filed September 20, 2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, 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, of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: �Horace Abney, Jr. appeals his conviction for trafficking cocaine and thirty-year sentence, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial and motion to dismiss pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers[1] (IAD).� We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:�

1.� As to whether the trial court erred in denying Abney's new trial motion: State v. Garrett, 350 S.C. 613, 619, 567 S.E.2d 523, 526 (Ct. App. 2002) (stating generally, the grant or refusal of a new trial is within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion); State v. Williams, 292 S.C. 231, 232, 355 S.E.2d 861, 862 (1987) (finding an error in trying a defendant in his absence is subject to a harmless error analysis); see also State v. Shuler, 344 S.C. 604, 626, 545 S.E.2d 805, 816 (2001) (finding a defendant's absence during a Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964), hearing, if error, was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the defendant's inability to contribute evidence that was not presented during his trial).

2.� As to whether the trial court erred in denying Abney's motion to dismiss pursuant to the IAD:� Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716, 725 (1985) ("The language of the [IAD] therefore makes clear that the phrase 'untried indictment, information or complaint' in Art. III refers to criminal charges pending against a prisoner.").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.�

[1] S.C. Code Ann. � 17-11-10 (2003).

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