State v. Pinkney

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Pinkney

DecidedDecember 23, 2013

Docket2013-UP-490

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Pinkney (State v. Pinkney) 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. Pinkney, (S.C. Ct. App. 2013).

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

The State, Respondent,

v.

Reggie Pinkney, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-188769

Appeal From Horry County James B. Lockemy, Circuit Court Judge Larry B. Hyman, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-490 Submitted October 1, 2013 – Filed December 23, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Reggie Pinkney appeals his conviction of trafficking cocaine, arguing the trial judge improperly relied on a pre-trial ruling denying a motion to suppress from a proceeding that resulted in a mistrial. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Carlson, 363 S.C. 586, 595, 611 S.E.2d 283, 287 (Ct. App. 2005) ("A party cannot complain of an error which his own conduct has induced."); id. (holding the Appellant could not complain when he "consented to the procedure proposed by the trial [court]"); State v. Whipple, 324 S.C. 43, 51, 476 S.E.2d 683, 687 (1996) ("By proceeding . . . without further objection, [Appellant] waived any right to complain."); State v. Patton, 322 S.C. 408, 412, 472 S.E.2d 245, 247 (1996) ("[T]he trial court's denial of a suppression hearing in this case was harmless and did not prejudice Appellant."); id. at 412, 472 S.E.2d at 248 ("A careful review of the record in this case assures us that the trial court possessed all the necessary information on which to base its ultimate holding that no constitutional violations occurred, and we agree with that holding.").

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and PIEPER and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

1 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

The State, Respondent,

v.

Reggie Pinkney, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-188769

Appeal From Horry County James B. Lockemy, Circuit Court Judge Larry B. Hyman, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-490 Submitted October 1, 2013 – Filed December 23, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Reggie Pinkney appeals his conviction of trafficking cocaine, arguing the trial judge improperly relied on a pre-trial ruling denying a motion to suppress from a proceeding that resulted in a mistrial. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Carlson, 363 S.C. 586, 595, 611 S.E.2d 283, 287 (Ct. App. 2005) ("A party cannot complain of an error which his own conduct has induced."); id. (holding the Appellant could not complain when he "consented to the procedure proposed by the trial [court]"); State v. Whipple, 324 S.C. 43, 51, 476 S.E.2d 683, 687 (1996) ("By proceeding . . . without further objection, [Appellant] waived any right to complain."); State v. Patton, 322 S.C. 408, 412, 472 S.E.2d 245, 247 (1996) ("[T]he trial court's denial of a suppression hearing in this case was harmless and did not prejudice Appellant."); id. at 412, 472 S.E.2d at 248 ("A careful review of the record in this case assures us that the trial court possessed all the necessary information on which to base its ultimate holding that no constitutional violations occurred, and we agree with that holding.").

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and PIEPER and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Pinkney, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pinkney-scctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack