Peterson v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Peterson v. State

DecidedMay 12, 2008

Docket2008-MO-023

StatusUnpublished

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

Bluebook

Peterson v. State, (S.C. 2008).

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

Tony A. Peterson, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County
Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2008-MO-023
Submitted April 16, 2008 Filed May 12, 2008

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Karen Ratigan, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Following a post-conviction relief (PCR) hearing, we granted petitioner a belated direct appeal pursuant to White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974). We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Issue 1- State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292-93, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) (case should be submitted to the jury if there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence that reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused or from which guilt may be fairly and logically deduced; trial court is concerned only with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight); Issue 2- State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 620 S.E.2d 737 (2005) (warrantless search is permissible incident to a lawful arrest because of legitimate concerns for the safety of the officer and to prevent the destruction of evidence); Issue 3- State v. Saltz, 346 S.C. 114, 136, 551 S.E.2d 240, 252 (2001) (court must look to totality of circumstances to determine if statement was knowingly, intelligibly, and voluntarily made); Issue 4- State v. Ivey, 331 S.C. 118, 123, 502 S.E.2d 92, 94 (1998) (jurors competence is within the trial courts discretion and is not reviewable on appeal unless wholly unsupported by the evidence); Issue 5- State v. Williams, 297 S.C. 290, 376 S.E.2d 773 (1989) (party offering drugs into evidence must establish a chain of custody as far as practicable); Issue 6- State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 564 S.E.2d 87 (2002) (exclusion of evidence is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion accompanied by probable prejudice).

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, PLEICONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

Tony A. Peterson, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County
Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2008-MO-023
Submitted April 16, 2008 Filed May 12, 2008

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Karen Ratigan, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Following a post-conviction relief (PCR) hearing, we granted petitioner a belated direct appeal pursuant to White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974). We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Issue 1- State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292-93, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) (case should be submitted to the jury if there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence that reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused or from which guilt may be fairly and logically deduced; trial court is concerned only with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight); Issue 2- State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 620 S.E.2d 737 (2005) (warrantless search is permissible incident to a lawful arrest because of legitimate concerns for the safety of the officer and to prevent the destruction of evidence); Issue 3- State v. Saltz, 346 S.C. 114, 136, 551 S.E.2d 240, 252 (2001) (court must look to totality of circumstances to determine if statement was knowingly, intelligibly, and voluntarily made); Issue 4- State v. Ivey, 331 S.C. 118, 123, 502 S.E.2d 92, 94 (1998) (jurors competence is within the trial courts discretion and is not reviewable on appeal unless wholly unsupported by the evidence); Issue 5- State v. Williams, 297 S.C. 290, 376 S.E.2d 773 (1989) (party offering drugs into evidence must establish a chain of custody as far as practicable); Issue 6- State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 564 S.E.2d 87 (2002) (exclusion of evidence is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion accompanied by probable prejudice).

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, PLEICONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Peterson v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-state-sc-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack