State v. Miller

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.

James B. Miller, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-002664

Appeal From Lexington County
Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-086
Submitted January 1, 2018 – Filed February 14, 2018

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, both of
Columbia, and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of
Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: James B. Miller appeals his convictions for possession of altered
pseudoephedrine and manufacturing methamphetamine. On appeal, Miller argues
the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion to suppress evidence found at the
crime scene and (2) denying his motion for a mistrial. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion to suppress: State
v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 23, 598 S.E.2d 735, 737 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The admission
of evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); State v.
Moore, 377 S.C. 299, 306, 659 S.E.2d 256, 259-60 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal
from a motion to suppress evidence based on Fourth Amendment grounds, our
review is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the [trial] court's
decision."); State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 112, 603 S.E.2d 594, 596 (2004) ("To
claim protection under the Fourth Amendment . . . , defendants must show that
they have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched."); State v.
Robinson, 396 S.C. 577, 584, 722 S.E.2d 820, 823 (Ct. App. 2012) ("While an
overnight guest may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the host's
property, 'a person present only intermittently or for a purely commercial purpose
does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.'" (quoting State v. Flowers, 360
S.C. 1, 5, 598 S.E.2d 725, 728 (Ct. App. 2004))); Flowers, 360 S.C. at 5, 598
S.E.2d at 728 ("A reasonable expectation of privacy exists when the defendant has
a relationship with the property or property owner."); State v. Counts, 413 S.C.
153, 172, 776 S.E.2d 59, 70 (2015) (holding law enforcement must have
reasonable suspicion of illegal activity at a targeted residence prior to approaching
the residence and conducting a "knock and talk" to safeguard the express state
constitutional right against unreasonable invasions of privacy); Davis v. United
States, 564 U.S. 229, 232 (2011) (holding the exclusionary rule does not apply
when police conduct a search in objectively reasonable reliance on binding
appellate precedent).

2. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion for a mistrial:
State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 417, 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The
decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court
and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an
error of law."); id. ("The granting of a motion for mistrial is an extreme measure
that should be taken only when the incident is so grievous the prejudicial effect can
be removed in no other way."); id. ("[A] defendant must show both error and
resulting prejudice to be entitled to a mistrial."); State v. Harris, 382 S.C. 107, 119,
674 S.E.2d 532, 538 (Ct. App. 2009) ("It is well known '[a] curative instruction to
disregard incompetent evidence and not to consider it during deliberation is
deemed to have cured any alleged error in its admission.'" (quoting State v. Walker,

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
366 S.C. 643, 658, 623 S.E.2d 122, 130 (Ct. App. 2005))); State v. Grovenstein,
335 S.C. 347, 353, 517 S.E.2d 216, 219 (1999) ("[J]urors are presumed to follow
the law as instructed to them.").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.