State v. Millidge

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.

Trevin Millidge, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000281

Appeal From Beaufort County
Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-220
Heard February 15, 2018 – Filed May 30, 2018

AFFIRMED

Timothy J. Vitollo, of Vitollo Law Firm, LLC, of North
Charleston, and Chief Appellate Defender Robert
Michael Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of
Columbia, and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of
Bluffton, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:
1. As to Appellant's argument the trial court erred in denying his motion to
suppress evidence obtained by a search warrant because it contained insufficient
information concerning a confidential informant's reliability, we find no error. See
State v. Kinloch, 410 S.C. 612, 617, 767 S.E.2d 153, 155 (2014) ("In reviewing a
magistrate's probable cause determination, circuit court judges must determine
whether the issuing magistrate had a substantial basis upon which to conclude that
probable cause existed."); State v. Bellamy, 336 S.C. 140, 144, 519 S.E.2d 347,
349 (1999) (noting the duty of a court reviewing a determination that probable
cause exists for issuance of a search warrant is to ensure the issuing judge had a
substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed); Kinloch, 410 S.C. at
617, 767 S.E.2d at 155 ("A warrant is supported by probable cause if, given the
totality of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, there is a fair probability that
contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place."); State v.
Robinson, 415 S.C. 600, 605, 785 S.E.2d 355, 357 (2016) ("The veracity and the
basis of knowledge of persons supplying the information in a search-warrant
affidavit are considerations in the determination of whether there is probable cause
to issue a search warrant."); id. ("An affidavit based solely on information provided
by a confidential informant must contain information supporting the credibility of
the informant and the basis of his knowledge." (emphasis added)); State v. Dupree,
354 S.C. 676, 687, 583 S.E.2d 437, 443 (Ct. App. 2003) ("An informant's
controlled buy of drugs can constitute probable cause sufficient for a magistrate to
issue a warrant."); Bellamy, 336 S.C. at 143-44, 519 S.E.2d at 349 (noting an
informant's veracity or reliability and his basis of knowledge are not to be
construed separately, but are closely intertwined elements and relevant
considerations in the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, and "a deficiency in
one of the elements may be compensated for . . . by a strong showing as to the
other, or by some other indicia of reliability"); id. at 145, 519 S.E.2d at 349
(finding an affidavit in support of a search warrant was sufficient even though it
was weak on the element of the reliability of the informant because "this deficiency
[was] compensated for by the strong showing of specificity, first-hand observation,
and partial corroboration"); Dupree, 354 S.C. at 690, 583 S.E.2d at 444 ("[When]
the affidavit is based in part on information provided by an informant of unknown
reliability, police corroboration of details provided in the tip may establish
probable cause."); Robinson, 415 S.C. at 605, 785 S.E.2d at 357-58 (finding the
contents of a search warrant affidavit were sufficient to provide the trial court a
substantial basis to believe that the police department had a confidential informant
who bought a substance that tested positive for cocaine from the home in question
and the informant had made other recent purchases of illegal drugs from the home,
such that, "[l]ooking at the four corners of the affidavit, there [was] information
from which the [trial court] could conclude the confidential informant was
reliable"); State v. Rutledge, 373 S.C. 312, 318, 644 S.E.2d 789, 791-92 (Ct. App.
2007) (finding the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable
cause existed to issue a search warrant for the residence when the search warrant
was not based solely on the tip from the confidential informant, noting marijuana
was found by officers in the trash can in front of the residence and the electric bill
was registered in Rutledge's name, thus substantiating the credibility of the
informant and the veracity of his statements).

2. As to Appellant's argument the trial court erred in denying his motion to
suppress the alleged confession because the alleged confession was obtained as a
result of a defective search warrant and was, thus, fruit of the poisonous tree, we
first question whether this issue is preserved for review, as Appellant never
asserted this as a basis for suppression to the trial court. State v. McKnight, 352
S.C. 635, 646, 576 S.E.2d 168, 174 (2003) (noting an issue must be raised to and
ruled upon by the trial court in order to be preserved for appellate review); State v.
Benton, 338 S.C. 151, 157, 526 S.E.2d 228, 231 (2000) (noting a defendant may
not argue one ground below and another on appeal). At any rate, we find no merit
to this argument inasmuch as we have concluded the affidavit supporting the
warrant was sufficient to provide a substantial basis for the issuing magistrate to
conclude that probable cause existed for issuance of the warrant.

3. As to Appellant's argument the trial court erred in denying his motion to
suppress the alleged confession because he was not advised of his rights to remain
silent and to an attorney under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United
States Constitution, we likewise question whether Appellant's stated issue on
appeal or the arguments made in his brief are preserved. See McKnight, 352 S.C.
at 646, 576 S.E.2d at 174 (noting an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the
trial court in order to be preserved for appellate review); Benton, 338 S.C. at 157,
526 S.E.2d at 231 (noting a defendant may not argue one ground below and
another on appeal). Nonetheless, even assuming proper preservation of Appellant's
contentions, we find no error. See State v. Breeze, 379 S.C. 538, 543, 665 S.E.2d
247, 250 (Ct. App. 2008) (stating an appellate court's role in "reviewing a trial
court's ruling concerning the admissibility of a statement upon proof of its
voluntariness is not to reevaluate the facts based on our view of the preponderance
of the evidence", but is "limited to determining whether the trial court's ruling is
supported by any evidence"; a trial court's finding as to voluntariness of a
statement will not be reversed on appeal unless so erroneous as to show an abuse
of discretion).
AFFIRMED.

HUFF, GEATHERS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.