State v. Austin

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 P.
Austin, Appellant.

Appeal From Sumter County

W. Jeffrey Young, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-475  

Submitted October 1, 2011 – Filed October
26, 2011

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Ernest A. Finney, III, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  James
P. Austin appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine.  He argues the
circuit court erred in denying (1) his motion to suppress drug evidence because
he was illegally seized and (2) his motion to continue the trial due to the
unavailability of a material witness.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the circuit court
erred in denying Austin's motion to suppress the drug evidence: State v.
Tindall, 388 S.C. 518, 521, 698 S.E.2d 203, 205 (2010) ("On appeals
from a motion to suppress based on Fourth Amendment grounds, [an appellate
court] applies a deferential standard of review and will reverse if there is
clear error."); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n.16 (1968)
("Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority,
has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may [a court] conclude that
a 'seizure' has occurred."); State v. Foster, 269 S.C. 373, 378,
237 S.E.2d 589, 591 (1977) (recognizing "that
the police may briefly detain and question a person upon a reasonable
suspicion, short of probable cause for arrest, that he is involved in criminal
activity").

2.  As to whether the circuit court
abused its discretion in denying Austin's motion for a continuance: State v.
Colden, 372 S.C. 428, 435, 641 S.E.2d 912, 916 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The granting of a motion for a continuance is within the
sound discretion of the [circuit] court and will not be disturbed absent a
clear showing of an abuse of discretion."); id. at 438, 641
S.E.2d at 918 ("[A] party asking for a continuance must show . . . what
the party believes the absent witness would testify to and the basis for that
belief.").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER,
and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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