State v. Cochran

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.

Latisha
Lee Cochran, Appellant.

Appeal From Florence County

Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-310

Submitted April 2, 2012 – Filed May 16, 2012   

AFFIRMED

Appellate
Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney
General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General
Harold M. Coombs Jr.,  all of Columbia; and Solicitor E.L. Clements III, of
Florence, for Respondent.

PER
CURIAM: Latisha
Lee Cochran appeals her conviction of armed robbery, arguing the trial court
erred in admitting a purported confession given under inherently coercive
circumstances.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dye, 384 S.C. 42,
46, 681 S.E.2d 23, 26 (Ct. App. 2009) ("On review, the [trial] court's
conclusions on issues of fact as to the voluntariness of a confession will not
be disturbed unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of
discretion."); State v. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527, 566, 647 S.E.2d 144,
164 (2007) (holding the voluntariness of a confession is determined based on
"the totality of the circumstances surrounding the defendant's giving the
confession" (citation omitted)); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412
U.S. 218, 226 (1973) (holding the totality of the circumstances includes "both
the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation"). 

AFFIRMED.

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

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