State v. Nash

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.

Quincy Maurice Nash, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-388

Submitted June 1, 2009 – Filed July 8,
2009   

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John M. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant
Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W.
Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Quincy Maurice Nash appeals his convictions and sentences for (1) intent to distribute crack cocaine within one-half
mile of school; (2) possession with intent to distribute cocaine within
one-half mile of school; (3) possession with intent to distribute cocaine; and
(4) possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and/or crack cocaine. We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1.  Regarding Nash’s
claim the trial court erred in upholding the magistrate’s finding that the no-knock warrant was justified:  Richards
v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394 (1997) (holding in order to justify a
no-knock entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and
announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be
dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of
the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence); State v.
King, 349 S.C. 142, 150, 561 S.E.2d 640, 644 (Ct. App. 2002) (stating a
search warrant may issue only upon a finding of probable cause, and
"[t]his determination requires the magistrate to make a practical,
common-sense decision of whether, given the totality of the circumstances set
forth in the affidavit, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of
persons supplying information, there is a fair probability that contraband or
evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”).

2.  Regarding whether use of a
tactical team to arrest Nash was unreasonable under the federal and state
Constitutions:  In re Michael H., 360 S.C. 540, 546, 602 S.E.2d 729, 732
(2004) (“An issue may not be raised for the first time on appeal.  In order to
preserve an issue for appeal, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the
trial court.”).

 AFFIRMED.[1]

 HUFF,
PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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