James Burgess appeals from his convictions of burglary, attempted rape and aggravated sodomy. Burgess contends that the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial on the ground that the State failed to disclose an agreement it had with Burgess' accomplice; Burgess claims that the State agreed to recommend a lenient sentence to the court on behalf of the accomplice in exchange for his testimony against Burgess.

Because the statement of the State's attorney supported the court's finding that there was no deal between the State and the accomplice, the denial of the motion for a new trial shall not be disturbed.