State v. Burns

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.

Artie T. Burns, Appellant.

Appeal From Dillon County

 John L. Breeden, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-262

Submitted May 1, 2009 – Filed June 1, 2009

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior
Assistant Attorney General Norman M. Rapoport, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Jay
E. Hodge, Jr., of Cheraw, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Artie T. Burns appeals his conviction for trafficking one hundred grams or more
of cocaine but less than two hundred grams.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR,
and the following authorities: 

1.  As to whether the trial court
erred in denying Burns's motion to suppress the videotape and drugs: State
v. Pichardo, 367 S.C. 84, 99, 623 S.E.2d 840, 848 (Ct. App. 2005)
("[A] law enforcement officer's continued questioning of a vehicle's
driver and passenger outside the scope of a valid traffic stop passes muster
under the Fourth Amendment either when the officer has a reasonable articulable
suspicion of other illegal activity or when the valid traffic stop has become a
consensual encounter.").

2.  As to whether the trial court
erred in allowing the indictment to be amended: S.C. Code Ann. § 17-19-100
(2003) (the trial judge "may amend the indictment . . . if such amendment
does not change the nature of the offense charged."); State v. Cutner 354 S.C. 151, 155, 580 S.E.2d 120, 122 (2003), overruled on other grounds by State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 610 S.E.2d 494 (2005) (holding amendments
are generally permitted to correct an error of form such as a scrivener's
error).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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