State v. Deasman

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.

Maverick
Deasman, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

 G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-324

Submitted June 1, 2009 – Filed June 15,
2009 

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant
Attorney General Julie M.

Thames, and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Maverick Deasman appeals his conviction and sentence for first-degree robbery
arguing the trial court erred in refusing
to grant a mistrial after the prosecution cross-examined him over his
post-arrest silence.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Brecht v.
Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 628 (1993) (use of post-arrest silence for
impeachment purposes is allowed when no Miranda warnings are given); Fletcher
v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603, 607 (1982) ("In the absence of the sort of
affirmative assurances embodied in the Miranda warnings, we do not
believe that it violates due process of law for a State to permit
cross-examination as to post[-]arrest silence when a defendant chooses to take
the stand."); Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619 (1976) (holding use
of a defendant's silence at the time of arrest and after receiving Miranda warnings violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment); Brown
v. State, 375 S.C. 464, 480, 652 S.E.2d 765, 773-74 (Ct. App. 2007)
(holding PCR applicant failed to prove Doyle violation where no evidence
showed he had been given Miranda warnings);  State v. Bell, 347
S.C. 267, 271, 554 S.E.2d 435, 437 (Ct. App. 2001) (recognizing where there is
no evidence in the record of a defendant having received Miranda warnings, there will be no presumption the warnings were given at the time of
arrest).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
PIEPER and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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