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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Heyward Davis,
Jr., Appellant.

Appeal From Georgetown County

Paul M. Burch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-166

Submitted April 1, 2009 – Filed April 27,
2009

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior
Assistant Attorney Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory
Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Heyward Davis, Jr. appeals his
convictions and sentences for assault and
battery with intent to kill, assault with intent to kill, first-degree
burglary, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime.  Specifically, Davis argues the trial court erred in
denying his motion to suppress the weapon used in the crime.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: U. S. v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004) (holding the failure to give Miranda warnings does not require the suppression of the physical “fruits” of a
defendant’s unwarned but voluntary statements).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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