State v. Simpson

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Jerry Randall Simpson, Jr.       
Appellant.

Appeal From Abbeville County

Wyatt T. Saunders, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-003

Submitted October 15, 2003 – Filed January 7, 2004

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson,
Assistant Attorney General David Spencer, of Columbia; W. Townes Jones, IV,
Eighth Circuit Solicitor's Office, of Greenwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Simpson was indicted for driving
under the influence (DUI), failing to stop for a law enforcement vehicle, and
possession of a sawed-off shotgun.  Simpson contends the trial court erred in
failing to suppress all evidence resulting from the unreasonable seizure of
himself and his automobile.  He asserts that the court erred as the stop was
unreasonable and the evidence was fruit of a poisonous tree. We affirm
[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: State
v. Dorce, 320 S.C. 480, 483, 465 S.E.2d 772, 773 (Ct.App. 1995) (the admission
of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge whose ruling will
not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion); State v. Wilson,
345 S.C. 1, 5-6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001) (in criminal cases, this court sits
to review errors of law only, and we are bound by the trial court's factual
findings unless they are clearly erroneous); State v. Nelson, 336 S.C.
186, 192, 519 S.E.2d 786, 789 (1999) (an officer who lacks probable cause, but
whose observations lead him reasonably to suspect that a particular person has
committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, may detain that person
briefly in order to investigate the circumstances that provoke that suspicion);
State v. Woodruff, 344 S.C. 537, 546, 544 S.E.2d 290, 295 (Ct.App. 2001)
(if the officer's suspicions are confirmed or are further aroused, the stop
may be prolonged and the scope enlarged as required by the circumstances).   

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, STILWELL, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

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