State v. David

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Clifton Ronald David,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Marlboro County

J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-121

Submitted December 23, 2003 – Filed
February 25, 2004

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson,
Assistant Attorney General Deborah R. J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor
Jay E. Hodge, of Darlington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Clifton Ronald David was convicted
of strong-arm robbery and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment.  He appeals,
contending the trial court erred in admitting his written statements in violation
of Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964).  Having concluded oral argument
would not aid the court in resolving the issue raised by David, we decide this
case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR, and affirm pursuant
to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, because the point raised by David is manifestly without
merit.  See State v. Saltz, 346 S.C. 114, 136, 551 S.E.2d 240,
252 (2001) (stating the trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances,
including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused when determining
whether a defendant’s statement was voluntary); id. at 136, 551 S.E.2d
at 252 (noting the trial court’s conclusions regarding the voluntariness of
a statement will not be disturbed on appeal unless so manifestly erroneous as
to show an abuse of discretion); id. (“When reviewing a trial court's
ruling concerning voluntariness, this Court does not reevaluate the facts based
on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence, but simply determines
whether the trial court’s ruling is supported by any evidence.”); State v.
Hughes, 336 S.C. 585, 594, 521 S.E.2d 500, 505 (1999) (stating that absent
coercive police conduct, there is no basis for finding a confession constitutionally
involuntary); State v. Crawley, 349 S.C. 459, 465, 562 S.E.2d 683, 686
(Ct. App. 2002) (finding officer’s testimony regarding the defendant’s appearance
and actions during interrogation supported trial court’s conclusion that the
defendant’s statements were voluntary despite any withdrawal from alcohol and
drugs); State v. Kennedy, 325 S.C. 295, 305, 479 S.E.2d 838, 843 (Ct.
App. 1996), (stating the trial court must assess the totality of the surrounding
circumstances, including the characteristics of the defendant and the details
of the interrogation when determining whether the defendant’s will was overborne),
aff’d as modified, 333 S.C. 426, 510 S.E.2d 714 (1998).

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.