State v. Jackson

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.

Teron Hakeen
Jackson, Appellant.

Appeal From Sumter County

R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-430 

Submitted September 30, 2011 – Filed
October 3, 2011

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J.
Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Brendan J. McDonald, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Ernest A. Finney, III, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Teron Hakeen Jackson appeals his convictions for murder, attempted armed
robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, and possession
of a handgun by a person under eighteen years old, arguing the circuit court
erred in admitting his statements to police.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities:  State v. Rochester, 301 S.C. 196, 200, 391 S.E.2d 244, 247
(1990) ("On appeal, the conclusion of the [circuit court] on issues of
fact as to the voluntariness of a [statement] will not be disturbed unless so
manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion."); State v.
Breeze, 379 S.C. 538, 544, 665 S.E.2d 247, 250 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The
test of voluntariness is whether a suspect's will was overborne by the
circumstances surrounding the given statement."); State v. Smith,
268 S.C. 349, 354, 234 S.E.2d 19, 21 (1977) (holding the "decisions are
voluminous that the signing of a written waiver is usually sufficient" to
find an intelligent waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination); In
re Williams, 265 S.C. 295, 300, 217 S.E.2d 719, 721-22 (1975) (declining to
"adopt a rule under which any inculpatory statement obtained from a minor
in the absence of counsel, parent or other friendly adult would be [p]er se
inadmissible"); State v. Simmons, 384 S.C. 145, 163-66, 682 S.E.2d
19, 28-30 (Ct. App. 2009) (finding it within the circuit court's discretion to
find officers' testimony more credible than that of the defendant in making its
voluntariness determination). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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