City of Rock Hill v. Pickett

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

City of Rock Hill v. Pickett

DecidedMarch 26, 2014

Docket2014-UP-130

StatusUnpublished

This text of City of Rock Hill v. Pickett (City of Rock Hill v. Pickett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Rock Hill v. Pickett, (S.C. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

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

City of Rock Hill, Appellant,

v.

Ronnie Pickett, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2012-208206

Appeal From York County John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-130 Submitted February 1, 2014 – Filed March 26, 2014

REVERSED

Solicitor Christopher Edward Barton, of Rock Hill, for Appellant.

Michael Langford Brown, Jr., of The Law Offices of Michael L. Brown, Jr., of Rock Hill, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: This appeal arises from Ronnie Pickett's conviction in municipal court for driving with an unlawful alcohol concentration (DUAC). The circuit court reversed Pickett's DUAC conviction, finding the arresting officer failed to provide sufficient Miranda1 warnings as required by section 56-5-2953 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2013). The City of Rock Hill (City) appeals, arguing the circuit court erred in reversing Pickett's conviction because the Miranda warnings were sufficient. We reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478-79 (holding a suspect in custody must be warned prior to any questioning that "he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires"); State v. Hoyle, 397 S.C. 622, 627, 725 S.E.2d 720, 723 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[T]he right to terminate the interrogation at any time and to not answer any further questions is not a required Miranda warning.").

REVERSED.2

HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

City of Rock Hill, Appellant,

v.

Ronnie Pickett, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2012-208206

Appeal From York County John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-130 Submitted February 1, 2014 – Filed March 26, 2014

REVERSED

Solicitor Christopher Edward Barton, of Rock Hill, for Appellant.

Michael Langford Brown, Jr., of The Law Offices of Michael L. Brown, Jr., of Rock Hill, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: This appeal arises from Ronnie Pickett's conviction in municipal court for driving with an unlawful alcohol concentration (DUAC). The circuit court reversed Pickett's DUAC conviction, finding the arresting officer failed to provide sufficient Miranda1 warnings as required by section 56-5-2953 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2013). The City of Rock Hill (City) appeals, arguing the circuit court erred in reversing Pickett's conviction because the Miranda warnings were sufficient. We reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478-79 (holding a suspect in custody must be warned prior to any questioning that "he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires"); State v. Hoyle, 397 S.C. 622, 627, 725 S.E.2d 720, 723 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[T]he right to terminate the interrogation at any time and to not answer any further questions is not a required Miranda warning.").

REVERSED.2

HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

City of Rock Hill v. Pickett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-rock-hill-v-pickett-scctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack