State v. Niles

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: October 9, 2008
• Docket: 2008-UP-546
• Status: Unpublished

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 Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Robdrecko A. Niles, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Greenville County
 G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge
 D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-546
Submitted October 1, 2008 – Filed October 9, 2008

---

AFFIRMED

---

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R. J. Shupe, all of Columbia; Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Robdrecko Niles appeals his convictions for trafficking in cocaine and driving under suspension, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968) (finding police may briefly detain and question a person upon a reasonable suspicion criminal activity is involved); State v. Foster, 269 S.C. 373, 379, 237 S.E.2d 589, 592 (1977) (finding there was no search or seizure of defendant when he pulled his car over without any prompting by law enforcement); State v. Odom, 376 S.C. 330, 334, 656 S.E.2d 748, 750 (Ct. App. 2007) (explaining the appellate court’s review in Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the trial court’s finding).

AFFIRMED.

Anderson, Williams, and Konduros, JJ., concur

---

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