State v. Hinton

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.

Wren Roberson Hinton, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-001140

Appeal From Greenville County
Deadra L. Jefferson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-482
Submitted October 1, 2014 – Filed December 23, 2014

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Tracy A. Meyers, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor William Walter Wilkins, III, of
Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Provet, 391 S.C. 494, 507, 706 S.E.2d 513, 520 (Ct. App.
2011) ("Warrantless searches and seizures are reasonable within the meaning of the
Fourth Amendment when conducted under the authority of voluntary consent."),
aff'd, 405 S.C. 101, 747 S.E.2d 453 (2013); id. (holding the voluntariness of
consent is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances
and an appellate court will not disturb the trial court's finding of consent unless it
was so manifestly erroneous as to be an abuse of discretion); State v. Banda, 371
S.C. 245, 251, 639 S.E.2d 36, 39 (2006) (holding that in a criminal case, this court
will not reverse a trial court's factual finding unless it is clearly erroneous and the
same standard of review applies to the admission of evidence); State v. Missouri,
361 S.C. 107, 111, 603 S.E.2d 594, 596 (2004) (holding in a Fourth Amendment
search and seizure case, this court must affirm if the record contains any evidence
supporting the trial court's finding); Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375
(1993) ("If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing and feels
an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has
been no invasion of the suspect's privacy beyond that already authorized by the
officer's search for weapons . . . .").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, SHORT, AND KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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