State v. Young

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.

Corvin Young, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-548

Submitted December 1, 2010 – Filed
December 17, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Corvin Young appeals his conviction of
discharging a firearm into a dwelling, arguing the trial court erred in ruling
that his request for counsel was ambiguous.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), 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 the voluntariness of a [statement] will not be disturbed unless
so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion."); Davis v.
United States, 512 U.S. 452, 461-62 (1994) (holding if a suspect's request
for counsel "is not an unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel, the
officers have no obligation to stop questioning him");  Edwards v.
Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 485 (1981) (holdingofficers may continue with an interrogation after the accused requests
counsel if the accused "initiates further communication, exchanges, or
conversations with the police").    

AFFIRMED.

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

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