State v. Johnson

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.

David Mario
Johnson, Appellant.

Appeal From Anderson County

R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-264    

Submitted March 1, 2012 – Filed May 2,
2012

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Christina T. Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: David Mario Johnson appeals his
convictions for trafficking in cocaine and possession of marijuana, arguing the
trial court erred in admitting his statement into evidence.  Specifically,
Johnson avers the police procured his statement through a promise of leniency. 
We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Saltz,
346 S.C. 114, 136, 551 S.E.2d 240, 252 (2001) ("When reviewing a trial court's
ruling concerning voluntariness, this [court] does not reevaluate the facts
based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence, but simply
determines whether the trial court's ruling is supported by any evidence."); United States v. Mashburn, 406 F.3d 303, 309-10 (4th Cir. 2005) (finding
law enforcement officer's statement that defendant could only help himself by
providing assistance to law enforcement did not constitute a promise of
leniency).       

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and
HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.

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