State v. Jonathan Alexander Phillips

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.

Jonathon Alexander Phillips, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-000324

Appeal From York County
Daniel Dewitt Hall, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-392
Submitted September 1, 2017 – Filed October 18, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lara M. Caudy, of Columbia, for
Appellant

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe,
both of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of
York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48, 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In
criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); State v.
Moore, 343 S.C. 282, 288, 540 S.E.2d 445, 448 (2000) ("Generally, the decision to
admit an eyewitness identification is at the trial [court's] discretion and will not be
disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of such, or the commission of prejudicial legal
error."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse
of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary
support or are controlled by an error of law."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 81,
600 S.E.2d 523, 526 (2004) ("A criminal defendant may be deprived of due
process of law by an identification procedure which is unnecessarily suggestive
and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification."); Moore, 343 S.C. at 286,
540 S.E.2d at 447 ("An in-court identification of an accused is inadmissible if a
suggestive out-of-court identification procedure created a very substantial
likelihood of irreparable misidentification."); Traylor, 360 S.C. at 81, 600 S.E.2d at
526-27 ("The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to
determine the admissibility of an out-of-court identification. First, a court must
ascertain whether the identification process was unduly suggestive. The court
must next decide whether the out-of-court identification was nevertheless so
reliable that no substantial likelihood of misidentification existed." (citation
omitted)); id. at 82, 600 S.E.2d at 527 ("Even assuming an identification procedure
is suggestive, it need not be excluded so long as, under all the circumstances, the
identification was reliable notwithstanding the suggestiveness."); Neil v. Biggers,
409 U.S. 188, 199-200 (1972) ("[T]he factors to be considered in evaluating the
likelihood of misidentification include the opportunity of the witness to view the
criminal at the time of the crime, the witness'[s] degree of attention, the accuracy
of the witness'[s] prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty
demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between
the crime and the confrontation."); Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 116 (1977)
(noting that "identifications arising from single-photograph displays may be
viewed in general with suspicion" but holding it could not say that "under all the
circumstances of [the] case there [was] 'a very substantial likelihood of irreparable
misidentification'" (quoting Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968))).

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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