State v. Alston

THIS OPINION
HAS NO PRECEDENTAL 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.

Kendrick V.
Alston, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-146

Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed April 11,
2011

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of
Columbia; Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Appellant
Kendrick V. Alston appeals his conviction for resisting arrest.  On appeal,
Alston argues the trial court erred in denying both his motion for a directed
verdict and for a new trial because the arresting officer did not have a
warrant or probable cause to justify the underlying arrest for driving under
suspension.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Rule 19(a),
SCRCrimP (requiring a trial court to consider only the existence or
nonexistence of evidence when considering a motion for a directed verdict); State
v. Johnson, 376 S.C. 8, 11, 654 S.E.2d 835, 836 (2007) ("A trial judge
has the discretion to grant or deny a motion for a new trial, and his decision
will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion."); S.C. Code Ann.
§ 17-13-30 (2003) ("The sheriffs and deputy sheriffs of this State may
arrest without warrant any and all persons who, within their view, violate any
of the criminal laws of this State if such arrest be made at the time of such
violation of law or immediately thereafter."); State v. Martin, 275
S.C. 141, 147-48, 268 S.E.2d 105, 108 (1980) (holding it is error to interpret
section 17-13-30 so as to exclude the power of an officer to arrest for a
misdemeanor, without a warrant, where the facts and circumstances within his
observation give him probable cause to believe that the crime has been freshly
committed); State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 49, 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006)
("Probable cause for a warrantless arrest exists when the circumstances
within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to lead a reasonable
person to believe that a crime has been committed by the person being
arrested.").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT,
and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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