State v. Harms

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Harms

DecidedMarch 4, 2003

Docket2003-UP-172

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Harms (State v. Harms) 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

State v. Harms, (S.C. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Timothy Harms, Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County
Marc H. Westbrook, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-172
Submitted January 10, 2003 Filed March 4, 2003

AFFIRMED

Chief Attorney Daniel T. Stacey, of Columbia; for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster; Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh; Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson; Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman M. Rapoport, of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington; for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Timothy Harms was indicted for driving under the influence, fourth offense or more; driving under suspension, third offense or more; and habitual offender. He was convicted and sentenced to five years for DUI, three years for DUS, and five years for habitual offender, with all sentences running concurrently. Harms appeals, arguing the trial court erred in admitting a statement he made to a trooper who picked him up from the emergency room after the accident. We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220(c) and the following authorities: State. v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001) (This Court does not re-evaluate the facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence but simply determines whether the trial judges ruling is supported by any evidence.); State. v. Von Dohlen, 322 S.C. 234, 243, 471 S.E.2d 689, 694 (1996) (stating that the test for determining the admissibility of a statement is whether it was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given under the totality of the circumstances); State v. White, 311 S.C. 289, 294-295, 428 S.E. 2d 740, 743 (Ct. App. 1993) (holding the fact that defendant had been administered sodium pentothal and was strapped to his bed was only a circumstance the trial court had to consider in determining voluntariness).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., GOOLSBY and SHULER, JJ., concur.

[1] We affirm 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

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Timothy Harms, Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County
Marc H. Westbrook, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-172
Submitted January 10, 2003 Filed March 4, 2003

AFFIRMED

Chief Attorney Daniel T. Stacey, of Columbia; for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster; Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh; Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson; Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman M. Rapoport, of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington; for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Timothy Harms was indicted for driving under the influence, fourth offense or more; driving under suspension, third offense or more; and habitual offender. He was convicted and sentenced to five years for DUI, three years for DUS, and five years for habitual offender, with all sentences running concurrently. Harms appeals, arguing the trial court erred in admitting a statement he made to a trooper who picked him up from the emergency room after the accident. We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220(c) and the following authorities: State. v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001) (This Court does not re-evaluate the facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence but simply determines whether the trial judges ruling is supported by any evidence.); State. v. Von Dohlen, 322 S.C. 234, 243, 471 S.E.2d 689, 694 (1996) (stating that the test for determining the admissibility of a statement is whether it was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given under the totality of the circumstances); State v. White, 311 S.C. 289, 294-295, 428 S.E. 2d 740, 743 (Ct. App. 1993) (holding the fact that defendant had been administered sodium pentothal and was strapped to his bed was only a circumstance the trial court had to consider in determining voluntariness).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., GOOLSBY and SHULER, JJ., concur.

[1] We affirm this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Harms, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harms-scctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack