State v. Harms

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Timothy Harms,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County

Marc H. Westbrook, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-172

Submitted January 10, 2003 – Filed March 4, 2003

AFFIRMED

Chief Attorney Daniel T. Stacey, of Columbia; for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster; Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh; Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson;
Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman M. Rapoport, of Columbia; and Solicitor
Donald V. Myers, of Lexington; for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Timothy Harms was indicted for driving
under the influence, fourth offense or more; driving under suspension, third
offense or more; and habitual offender.  He was convicted and sentenced to five
years for DUI, three years for DUS, and five years for habitual offender, with
all sentences running concurrently.  Harms appeals, arguing the trial court
erred in admitting a statement he made to a trooper who picked him up from the
emergency room after the accident.  We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220(c) and the
following authorities:  State. v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 6, 545 S.E.2d 827,
829 (2001) (“This Court does not re-evaluate the facts based on its own view
of the preponderance of the evidence but simply determines whether the trial
judge’s ruling is supported by any evidence.”); State. v.  Von Dohlen,
322 S.C. 234, 243, 471 S.E.2d 689, 694 (1996) (stating that the test for determining
the admissibility of a statement is whether it was knowingly, intelligently,
and voluntarily given under the totality of the circumstances); State v.
White, 311 S.C. 289, 294-295, 428 S.E. 2d 740, 743 (Ct. App. 1993) (holding
the fact that defendant had been administered sodium pentothal and was strapped
to his bed was only a circumstance the trial court had to consider in determining
voluntariness).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., GOOLSBY and SHULER, JJ., concur.  

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