State v. Crosby

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.

Randy Jarrod Crosby, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-205207

Appeal From Union County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-324
Heard April 8, 2014 – Filed August 20, 2014

AFFIRMED

Dayne C. Phillips, of Lexington, and Appellate Defender
Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Randy Jarrod Crosby appeals his conviction for possession with
intent to distribute crack cocaine. Crosby argues the trial court erred in: (1)
refusing to suppress the evidence seized during the search of the vehicle when law
enforcement did not have reasonable suspicion to justify the traffic stop; (2)
refusing to suppress the evidence seized during the search of the vehicle because
law enforcement did not have probable cause to believe the vehicle contained
evidence of criminal activity and no exigent circumstances existed to justify the
warrantless search; and (3) finding a sufficient chain of custody existed to admit
the evidence seized during the search of the vehicle and the drug evidence found in
the police car. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and State v. Pope, Op.
No. 5261 (S.C. Ct. App. filed August 20, 2014) (holding in the appeal of Crosby's
co-defendant, the trial court did not err in: (1) denying his motion to suppress the
evidence seized during the search of the vehicle because law enforcement had
reasonable suspicion to justify the traffic stop; (2) denying his motion to suppress
the evidence seized during the search of the vehicle because law enforcement had
probable cause to believe the vehicle contained evidence of criminal activity; and
(3) admitting the scales found in search of the vehicle and the drugs found in the
police car because the scales were a non-fungible item and the officer identified it
as the set he found in the vehicle, and a complete chain of custody was established
for the drugs, which were a fungible item).

AFFIRMED.

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