State v. Ransom-Williams

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.

Darius Ransom-Williams, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212566

Appeal From Orangeburg County
Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-021
Heard November 2, 2015 – Filed January 20, 2016

AFFIRMED

Sheila Marlouvon Bias, of Richardson Plowden &
Robinson, PA, and Chief Appellate Defender Robert
Michael Dudek, both of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of
Orangeburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Darius Ransom-Williams (Ransom-Williams) appeals his
convictions for first-degree burglary and assault and battery of a high and
aggravated nature, arguing the circuit court erred in (1) finding the inclusion of the
reconstructed proceedings presented a record sufficient for appellate review, and
(2) admitting Ransom-Williams's confession because it was obtained in violation
of his constitutional rights. We affirm.

1. We find the circuit court properly held the inclusion of the reconstructed
proceedings presented a record sufficient for appellate review. See Adams v. H.R.
Allen, Inc., 397 S.C. 652, 656, 726 S.E.2d 9, 12 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[T]he
reconstructed record must allow for meaningful appellate review."); State v.
Ladson, 373 S.C. 320, 324, 644 S.E.2d 271, 273 (Ct. App. 2007) (explaining our
state aligned with the majority of jurisdictions that hold the inability to prepare a
complete transcript, in and of itself, does not necessarily present a ground for
reversal); id. at 325, 644 S.E.2d at 273 ("Before a defendant can establish that he is
entitled to a new trial on the basis of an inadequate reconstructed record, he must
identify a specific appellate claim that this court would be unable to review
effectively using the reconstructed record." (brackets omitted) (emphasis added)
(quoting Harris v. Comm'r of Corr., 671 A.2d 359, 363 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996)));
Sweat v. Crawford, 292 S.C. 324, 327, 356 S.E.2d 147, 149 (Ct. App. 1987)
(finding omissions from the record did not prejudice appellant because the
evidence included in the record sufficiently supported the findings of fact made by
the referee).

2. We find the circuit court properly held that Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477,
484–85 (1981), did not mandate the suppression of Appellant's statements. See In
re Tracy B., 391 S.C. 51, 61, 704 S.E.2d 71, 75–76 (Ct. App. 2010) ("Once an
accused has invoked his right to have an attorney present during custodial
interrogation, he may not be subjected to further police interrogation 'unless the
accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with
the police.'" (quoting Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484–85 (1981))); id. at 65, 704 S.E.2d
at 78 ("The United States Supreme Court has stressed 'the Edwards rule is not a
constitutional mandate, but judicially prescribed prophylaxis.'" (quoting Maryland
v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 105 (2010))). Additionally, we find the circuit court
correctly determined that Appellant's inculpatory statements were made
voluntarily. See State v. Miller, 375 S.C. 370, 378, 652 S.E.2d 444, 448 (Ct. App.
2007) ("The [circuit court] determines the admissibility of a statement upon proof
of its voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence."); id. ("On appeal, the
conclusion of the [circuit court] as to the voluntariness of a statement will not be
reversed unless so erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion."); id. at 378–79,
652 S.E.2d at 448 ("When reviewing a [circuit court]'s ruling concerning
voluntariness, the appellate court does not re-evaluate the facts based on its own
view of the preponderance of the evidence, but simply determines whether the
[circuit court]'s ruling is supported by any evidence.").

AFFIRMED.

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