Edward M. Dunn, Jr. v. State

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

Edward Maurice Dunn, Jr., Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2018-001994

Appeal From Richland County
D. Craig Brown, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-150
Submitted February 1, 2023 – Filed April 12, 2023

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Joanna Katherine Delany, of
Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Joshua Abraham Edwards, both of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: This court granted certiorari to review the post-conviction relief
(PCR) court's finding that Petitioner Edward Maurice Dunn, Jr. failed to prove his
trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the legality of the Richland
County Sheriff's Office DNA database. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities: Sellner v. State, 416 S.C. 606, 610, 787
S.E.2d 525, 527 (2016) (holding a reviewing court "will uphold [the factual
findings of the PCR court] if there is any evidence of probative value to support
them"); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984) (stating that to prove
prejudice, a PCR applicant "must show that there is a reasonable probability that,
but for [trial] counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would
have been different"); State v. Adams, 409 S.C. 641, 647, 763 S.E.2d 341, 345
(2014) ("The exclusionary rule 'is a judicially created remedy designed to
safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather
than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved.'" (quoting United States
v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 (1974))); State v. McCord, 349 S.C. 477, 485, 562
S.E.2d 689, 693 (Ct. App. 2002) (finding the defendant's expectation of privacy in
his DNA, which was submitted to federal authorities in an unrelated case, "was
extinguished when he voluntarily gave the blood sample to federal authorities
without any limitation on the scope of his consent"); State v. Cardwell, 425 S.C.
595, 601, 824 S.E.2d 451, 454 (2019) ("[T]he inevitable discovery doctrine
provides that illegally obtained information may nevertheless be admissible if the
prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information
would have ultimately been discovered by lawful means." (citing Nix v. Williams,
467 U.S. 431, 444 (1984))); S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-620(A) (Supp. 2022)
(requiring a person adjudicated delinquent of an offense carrying a maximum
sentence exceeding ten years' imprisonment to submit a sample of their DNA to
SLED); S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-650(A) (Supp. 2022) (requiring SLED provide
DNA samples and the information derived therefrom to "federal, state, and local
law enforcement agencies and to approved crime laboratories which serve those
agencies").

AFFIRMED. 1

KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

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