State v. Davis

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: January 6, 2003
• Docket: 2003-UP-003
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

Gerald Davis,        Appellant.

---

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

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-003
Submitted October 22, 2002 – Filed January 6, 2003

---

AFFIRMED

---

Chief Attorney Daniel T. Stacey, of Columbia, for appellant.

Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson; Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for respondent.

---

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Rochester, 301 S.C. 196, 200, 391 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1990) (“On appeal, the conclusion of the trial judge on issues of fact as to voluntariness of a confession will not be disturbed unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion.”); State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001) (holding this Court must “simply determine[] whether the trial judge’s ruling is supported by any evidence”); State v. Peake, 291 S.C. 138, 139, 352 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1987) (holding the test for determining the admissibility of a statement is whether it is knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given);  State v. Childs, 299 S.C. 471, 476, 385 S.E.2d 839, 842 (1989) (holding where there is conflicting evidence about the voluntariness of a confession, the trial court must make a finding of fact as to the statement’s admissibility).

AFFIRMED. ^[1]

CONNOR, STILWELL, and HOWARD, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.