State v. Jorge Carpio

CourtListener 10153340Scctapp8 févr. 2010

Texte intégral

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.

Jorge Carpio, Appellant.

Appeal from Aiken County

J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-108

Submitted January 4, 2010 – Filed February
8, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle C. DuRant, 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 Deborah R.J. Shupe, all
of Columbia, and Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Jorge
Carpio appeals his convictions and sentences for armed robbery, attempted armed
robbery, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a
violent crime, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress
evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant for his residence.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR,
and the following authorities:  State
v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48-49, 625
S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("The trial judge's factual findings on whether
evidence should be suppressed due to a Fourth Amendment violation are reviewed
for clear error."); State v. Gentile, 373 S.C. 506, 513, 646 S.E.2d
171, 174 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[T]he duty of the reviewing court is to ensure
the issuing magistrate had a substantial basis upon which to conclude that
probable cause existed."); State v. Herring, Op. No. 26750 (S.C. Sup.Ct.
filed Dec. 21, 2009) (Shearouse Adv.Sh. No. 55 at 48-49) (holding supporting
affidavit that included description of the incident, the suspect, and other
details provided sufficient probable cause to justify issuance of search
warrant for defendant's residence).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.