State v. Lecroy

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.

Steven Lecroy, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

 J. Michelle Childs, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-434

Submitted October 1, 2011 – Filed October
11, 2011

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey 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 Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Daniel E. Johnson, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Steven
Lecroy appeals his convictions for third-offense trafficking in
methamphetamine, second-offense possession of a controlled substance, and
second-offense possession of marijuana, arguing the circuit court erred in
allowing the admission of (1) drug evidence found at his residence and (2) his
statement claiming ownership of the drugs found at his residence.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1.  As to whether the circuit court
erred in admitting drug evidence found in Lecroy's home pursuant to a search
warrant: State v. Tindall, 388 S.C. 518, 521, 698 S.E.2d 203, 205 (2010)
("On appeals from a motion to suppress based on
Fourth Amendment grounds, [an appellate court] applies a deferential standard
of review and will reverse if there is clear error."); State v.
Weston, 329 S.C. 287, 290, 494 S.E.2d 801, 802 (1997) ("A search
warrant may issue only upon a finding of probable cause."); State v. Rutledge,
373 S.C. 312, 317-18, 644 S.E.2d 789, 791-92 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding a
magistrate had substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed to issue
a search warrant of a residence based on the evidence, which consisted of an
anonymous tip, confirmation the individual identified by the informant lived at
the address, the defendant's prior convictions for marijuana, and marijuana
found in the trash can in front of the defendant's residence).

2.  As to whether the
circuit court erred in admitting Lecroy's statement claiming ownership of the
drug evidence found at his residence: State
v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 193 n.3,
498 S.E.2d 642, 644 n.3 (1998) (finding "a ruling in limine is not
final, and unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and
a final ruling procured, the issue is not preserved for review" (citation
omitted)).   

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ.,
concur.

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