State v. Rodriguez

CourtListener 10153803Scctapp24 gen 2011

Testo completo

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.

Maria Rodriguez, Appellant.

Appeal From Horry County

Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.   2011-UP-012

Submitted January 1 ,2011 – Filed January
24, 2011

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle C. DuRant, 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 Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Maria Rodriguez appeals her conviction for
trafficking cocaine, second-offense, in an amount between ten and twenty-eight
grams.  On appeal, Rodriguez argues the trial court erred in admitting
testimony regarding the police's knowledge of Rodriguez's possession of the car
and previous police incidents involving Rodriguez and the car.  We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

State v. Stanley, 365 S.C. 24, 42-43, 615 S.E.2d 455, 464 (Ct. App.
2005) ("In order to prove constructive possession, the State must show the defendant
had dominion and control, or the right to exercise dominion and control, over either the drugs or the premises upon which the drugs are  found."); Id. at 43, 615 S.E.2d at 465 ("The State must show the defendant had dominion or control over the thing allegedly possessed or had the right to exercise dominion or
control over it."); State v. Wise, 272 S.C. 384, 387, 252 S.E.2d 294, 295-96 (1979) (finding
evidence of the defendant's ownership and operation of the truck where the drugs
were found is sufficient to prove the defendant had dominion and control over
the drugs).

AFFIRMED.

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

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

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.