State v. Smith

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Smith

DecidedSeptember 24, 2007

Docket2007-MO-055

StatusUnpublished

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

State v. Smith, (S.C. 2007).

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

The State, Respondent,

v.

Donald Loren Smith, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2007-MO-055
Heard May 2, 2007 Filed September 24, 2007

AFFIRMED

Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, and Assistant Attorney General Jason P. Peavy, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brockman, 339 S.C. 57, 66, 528 S.E.2d 661, 666 (2000) (when reviewing a Fourth Amendment search and seizure case, an appellate court must affirm the trial courts ruling if there is any evidence to support the ruling); State v. Smart, 278 S.C. 515, 519, 299 S.E.2d 686, 688 (1982)[1] (appellant must do more than allege a violation of ethical canons to establish need for disqualification); S.C. Const. art. I, § 10 (protecting the right against unreasonable searches, seizures and invasions of privacy); State v. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 360, 580 S.E.2d 778, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) (there is no violation of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), if the affidavit, including the omitted data, still contains sufficient information to establish probable cause).

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, PLEICONES, JJ., and Acting Justices E. C. Burnett, III and J. Cordell Maddox, concur.

[1] Overruled on other grounds by State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45, 406 S.E.2d 315 (1991).

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

The State, Respondent,

v.

Donald Loren Smith, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2007-MO-055
Heard May 2, 2007 Filed September 24, 2007

AFFIRMED

Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, and Assistant Attorney General Jason P. Peavy, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brockman, 339 S.C. 57, 66, 528 S.E.2d 661, 666 (2000) (when reviewing a Fourth Amendment search and seizure case, an appellate court must affirm the trial courts ruling if there is any evidence to support the ruling); State v. Smart, 278 S.C. 515, 519, 299 S.E.2d 686, 688 (1982)[1] (appellant must do more than allege a violation of ethical canons to establish need for disqualification); S.C. Const. art. I, § 10 (protecting the right against unreasonable searches, seizures and invasions of privacy); State v. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 360, 580 S.E.2d 778, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) (there is no violation of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), if the affidavit, including the omitted data, still contains sufficient information to establish probable cause).

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, PLEICONES, JJ., and Acting Justices E. C. Burnett, III and J. Cordell Maddox, concur.

[1] Overruled on other grounds by State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45, 406 S.E.2d 315 (1991).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-sc-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack