State v. Sheldon Alonzo Watson

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.

Sheldon Alonzo Watson, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2018-002246

Appeal From Greenville County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-158
Submitted February 1, 2022 – Filed April 6, 2022

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch,
Jr., and Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Scott
Matthews, all of Columbia; and Solicitor William Walter
Wilkins, III, of Greenville, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Sheldon Alonzo Watson appeals his conviction for trafficking
methamphetamine and sentence of twelve years' imprisonment. Watson's counsel
initially filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
arguing the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress drug evidence
seized during a traffic stop because there was neither probable cause nor
reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle. Our court conducted an Anders review
and ordered the parties to brief the Anders issue.

We find evidence supports the trial court's determination that the deputy sheriff
who stopped Watson had reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop. The
deputy testified Watson's vehicle had an illegible temporary license plate on it.
Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Moore, 415 S.C. 245, 251, 781 S.E.2d 897, 900 (2016) ("On
appeals from a motion to suppress based on Fourth Amendment grounds,
[appellate courts apply] a deferential standard of review and will reverse if there is
clear error." (quoting State v. Adams, 409 S.C. 641, 647, 763 S.E.2d 341, 344
(2014))); id. ("The 'clear error' standard means that an appellate court will not
reverse a trial court's finding of fact simply because it would have decided the case
differently." (quoting State v. Pichardo, 367 S.C. 84, 96, 623 S.E.2d 840, 846 (Ct.
App. 2005))); id. ("Rather, appellate courts must affirm if there is any evidence to
support the trial court's ruling."); U.S. Const. amend. IV (providing protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures); S.C. Const. art. I, § 10 ("The right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy shall not
be violated . . . ."); Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 250 (1991) ("The touchstone
of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness."); State v. Vinson, 400 S.C. 347, 352,
734 S.E.2d 182, 184 (Ct. App. 2012) ("Reasonableness is measured in objective
terms by examining the totality of the circumstances." (quoting Pichardo, 367 S.C.
at 101, 623 S.E.2d at 849)); id. at 351, 734 S.E.2d at 184 ("A traffic stop
constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure; thus, the traffic stop must be reasonable
under the circumstances."); id. at 352, 734 S.E.2d at 184 ("A traffic stop is not
unreasonable if conducted with probable cause to believe a traffic violation has
occurred, or when the officer has a reasonable suspicion the occupants are involved
in criminal activity."); State v. Willard, 374 S.C. 129, 134, 647 S.E.2d 252, 255
(Ct. App. 2007) ("Reasonable suspicion is more than a general hunch but less than
what is required for probable cause."); State v. Provet, 405 S.C. 101, 108, 747
S.E.2d 453, 457 (2013) ("Violation of motor vehicle codes provides an
officer reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop."); S.C. Code Ann.
§ 56-3-210(C) (2018) (requiring temporary license plates to "contain the dealer's
name, city, and phone number, or the dealer's name and computer website address"
and "[t]he expiration date must be clearly legible from a distance of at least
twenty-five feet, written using a permanent black marker with at least a one quarter
inch wide tip, and must contain a numerical month, day, and year"), amended by
§ 56-3-210 (Supp. 2018); id. ("A person who issues or uses a temporary license
plate or allows a temporary license plate to be issued or used in violation of this
section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined one
hundred dollars for each occurrence.").1

AFFIRMED.2

GEATHERS and MCDONALD, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

1
To the extent Watson argues the deputy unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop, we
find that argument is unpreserved. See State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587
S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) ("Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will
not be considered on appeal."). At trial, Watson did not claim the deputy
unlawfully prolonged the stop. Rather, he asserted the initial stop was "an
unconstitutional detention" because the deputy "lack[ed] reasonable suspicion"
without referencing the events that occurred after the initial stop. Additionally, the
trial court only ruled on whether the deputy had reasonable suspicion to conduct
the initial stop.
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.