State v. Davis

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Gerald Davis,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-003

Submitted October 22, 2002 – Filed January
6, 2003

AFFIRMED

Chief Attorney Daniel T. Stacey, of Columbia, for appellant.

Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson;
Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule
220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Rochester,
301 S.C. 196, 200, 391 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1990) (“On appeal, the conclusion of
the trial judge on issues of fact as to voluntariness of a confession will not
be disturbed unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion.”);
State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001) (holding this
Court must “simply determine[] whether the trial judge’s ruling is supported
by any evidence”); State v. Peake, 291 S.C. 138, 139, 352 S.E.2d 487,
488 (1987) (holding the test for determining the admissibility of a statement
is whether it is knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given);  State
v. Childs, 299 S.C. 471, 476, 385 S.E.2d 839, 842 (1989) (holding where
there is conflicting evidence about the voluntariness of a confession, the trial
court must make a finding of fact as to the statement’s admissibility).

AFFIRMED. [1]

CONNOR, STILWELL, and HOWARD, JJ., concur.

[1] Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving
any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.