State v. Cook

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.

Jarminski
Rasheik Cook, Appellant.

Appeal From Kershaw County

G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-545

Submitted December 1, 2011 – Filed
December 6, 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, Assistant 
Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, and Solicitor Daniel E. Johnson, all of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER
CURIAM:  Jarminski Rasheik Cook appeals his convictions for possession with intent to distribute crack
cocaine, possession of marijuana, and trafficking in cocaine, arguing the circuit
court erroneously admitted drug evidence found in his apartment before a search
warrant arrived.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  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. Bailey, 276 S.C. 32, 36, 274 S.E.2d 913, 915 (1981) (recognizing
consent as an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement); State
v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 443, 706 S.E.2d 324, 327 (2011) ("[T]he two elements needed to satisfy the plain view exception
are:  (1) the initial intrusion which afforded the authorities the plain view
was lawful and (2) the incriminating nature of the evidence was immediately
apparent to the seizing authorities."); State v. Abdullah, 357 S.C.
344, 352, 592 S.E.2d 344, 349 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Under the plain view
doctrine, any object falling within the plain view of a law enforcement officer
who is lawfully in a position to view the object is subject to lawful
seizure.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ.,
concur.

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