State v. Gray

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.

Labon D. Gray, Appellant.

Appeal From Lancaster County

John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-261

Submitted May 1, 2011 – Filed June 7, 2011

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lanelle Cantey Durant,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames; all of Columbia, and
Solicitor Douglas A. Barfield, Jr., of Lancaster, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Appellant Labon D. Gray appeals his
convictions for possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana, and possession
of cocaine base.  On appeal, Gray argues the trial court erred in:  (1) denying
his motion to suppress evidence found in a search conducted in violation of the
Fourth Amendment and (2) denying his motion to suppress evidence admitted with
an insufficient chain of custody.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  U.S. v.
Scheetz, 293 F.3d 175, 183-84 (4th Cir. 2002) (finding narcotics officers
had probable cause to search a vehicle because three officers smelled an odor
of marijuana); State v. Tabory, 260 S.C. 355, 365-66, 196 S.E.2d 111,
113-14 (1973) (noting the odor of marijuana along with an untruthful statement
to police constituted probable cause to search the vehicle); State v.
Hatcher, Op. No. 26950 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed March 21, 2011) (Shearouse Adv.
Sh. No. 10 at 83) ("It is unnecessary that the police account for every
hand-to-hand transfer of the item; it is sufficient if the evidence
demonstrates a reasonable assurance the condition of the item remains the same
from the time it was obtained until its introduction at trial.") (internal
quotation and citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J.,
PIEPER and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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