State v. Alexander

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.

Alfonzo Alexander, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002636

Appeal From Abbeville County
Frank R. Addy, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-485
Submitted September 1, 2015 – Filed October 14, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Mary Williams Leddon, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor David M. Stumbo, of
Greenwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in admitting the crack cocaine into evidence:
State v. Taylor, 401 S.C. 104, 108, 736 S.E.2d 663, 665 (2013) ("A trial court's
Fourth Amendment suppression ruling must be affirmed if supported by any
evidence."); State v. Bailey, 276 S.C. 32, 36, 274 S.E.2d 913, 915 (1981) (holding
a person's status as a resident gave him the authority to consent to a search of the
premises); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968) ("Where a police officer observes
unusual conduct which leads him to reasonably conclude in light of his experience
that criminal activity may be afoot and that persons with whom he is dealing may
be armed and dangerous . . . he is entitled for the protection of himself and others
in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such
persons in an attempt to discover weapons."); State v. Provet, 405 S.C. 101, 113,
747 S.E.2d 453, 460 (2013) ("A warrantless search is reasonable within the
meaning of the Fourth Amendment when voluntary consent is given for the
search.").

2. As to whether the trial court erred in qualifying Lieutenant John Gray as an
expert witness: State v. Chavis, 412 S.C. 101, 106, 771 S.E.2d 336, 338 (2015)
("The qualification of an expert witness and the admissibility of the expert's
testimony are matters within the trial court's sound discretion. A trial court's
decision to admit or exclude expert testimony will not be reversed absent a
prejudicial abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when the
conclusions of the circuit court are either controlled by an error of law or are based
on unsupported factual conclusions." (citations omitted)); State v. Robinson, 396
S.C. 577, 586, 722 S.E.2d 820, 825 (Ct. App. 2012) ("To be competent to testify as
an expert, a witness must have acquired by reason of study or experience or both
such knowledge and skill in a profession or science that he is better qualified than
the jury to form an opinion on the particular subject of his testimony.").

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, GEATHERS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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