CourtListener 10155327•State v. Niles
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 239(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
v.
Robdrecko A.
Niles, Appellant.
Appeal From Greenville County
G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge
D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-546
Submitted October 1, 2008 Filed October
9, 2008
AFFIRMED
Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant
Attorney General Deborah R. J. Shupe, all of Columbia; Solicitor Robert M.
Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM:
Robdrecko Niles appeals
his convictions for trafficking in cocaine and driving under suspension,
arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Terry v.
Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968) (finding police may briefly detain and question
a person upon a reasonable suspicion criminal activity is involved); State v.
Foster, 269 S.C. 373, 379, 237 S.E.2d 589, 592 (1977) (finding there was no
search or seizure of defendant when he pulled his car over without any
prompting by law enforcement); State v. Odom, 376 S.C. 330, 334, 656
S.E.2d 748, 750 (Ct. App. 2007) (explaining the appellate courts review
in Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases is limited to determining whether
any evidence supports the trial courts finding).
AFFIRMED.
Anderson, Williams, and Konduros,
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.