State v. Davis

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.

Anthony C. Davis, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001869

Appeal From Kershaw County
Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-242
Submitted April 1, 2022 – Filed June 8, 2022

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Jessica M. Saxon, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior
Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer and
Solicitor Byron E. Gipson, all of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Anthony Davis appeals his convictions for one count of
trafficking cocaine, one count of trafficking crack cocaine, one count of possession
with intent to distribute cocaine within proximity of a school or park, and one
count of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine within proximity of a
school or park, and his four concurrent sentences of nine-years' imprisonment. On
appeal, Davis argues the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion to suppress the
narcotics and other items seized during the search of his apartment because the
search warrant affidavit contained no information establishing the confidential
informant's reliability and (2) denying his Franks v. Delaware1 motion because the
search warrant affidavit contained a misleading statement. We affirm.

1. We hold the trial court did not err by denying Davis's motion to suppress
because the unchallenged statements contained in the search warrant affidavit
established a substantial basis for the magistrate to conclude probable cause existed
to search Davis's apartment. See State v. Alston, 422 S.C. 270, 279, 811 S.E.2d
747, 751 (2018) ("On appeal from a motion to suppress on Fourth Amendment
grounds, [the appellate court] applies a deferential standard of review and will
reverse only if there is clear error." (quoting Robinson v. State, 407 S.C. 169,
180-81, 754 S.E.2d 862, 868 (2014))); id. ("[T]his deference does not bar [the
appellate court] from conducting its own review of the record to determine whether
the trial [court]'s decision [was] supported by the evidence." (quoting State v.
Tindall, 388 S.C. 518, 521, 698 S.E.2d 203, 205 (2010))); State v. Thompson, 419
S.C. 250, 256, 797 S.E.2d 716, 719 (2017) ("In determining whether a search
warrant [was] supported by probable cause, the crucial element is not whether the
target of the search [was] suspected of a crime, but whether it is reasonable to
believe that the items to be seized will be found in the place to be searched."); id. at
256-57, 797 S.E.2d at 719 ("[T]he judicial officer asked to issue a search warrant
must make a practical, common sense decision concerning whether, under the
totality of the circumstances set forth in the [supporting] affidavit, there is a fair
probability that evidence of a crime will be found in the particular place to be
searched.").

2. We hold the trial court did not err by denying Davis's Franks motion because
Davis failed to prove the second prong of the Franks test—that the magistrate's
probable cause finding hinged on the alleged misleading statement. See State v.
Porch, 417 S.C. 619, 626, 790 S.E.2d 440, 444 (Ct. App. 2016) ("Entitlement to a
Franks hearing is a matter of law subject to de novo review."); Franks, 438 U.S. at
171 ("There is . . . a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting
[a] search warrant."); id. at 171-72 (providing a criminal defendant is entitled to a
hearing on the veracity of the factual assertions contained within a search warrant

1
438 U.S. 154 (1978) (allowing defendants to challenge a probable cause
determination in limited circumstances).
affidavit if (1) the criminal defendant makes a preliminary showing that the alleged
false or misleading statement contained within the affidavit was made knowingly,
intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth and (2) the false or misleading
statement was necessary to support the finding of probable cause to conduct the
search); State v. Missouri, 337 S.C. 548, 554, 524 S.E.2d 394, 397 (1999) (stating
the criminal defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing if, when the alleged false
or misleading statement "is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the
warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause" (quoting Franks, 438 U.S.
at 171-72)).

AFFIRMED.2

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.