State v. Roseboro

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.

Jon Michael Roseboro, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000685

Appeal From Spartanburg County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-476
Heard September 17, 2015 – Filed October 7, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Benjamin John Tripp, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jon Roseboro appeals his convictions for throwing bodily fluids
and resisting arrest, arguing the trial court erred in not dismissing the charges
because the arresting officer was "persistently unreasonable in handling [his] arrest
and therefore violated [his] Fourth Amendment rights." We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Odom, 412 S.C. 253,
258, 772 S.E.2d 149, 151 (2015) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to
review errors of law only. Therefore, this [c]ourt is bound by the trial court's
factual findings unless the appellant can demonstrate that the trial court's
conclusions either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Sims, 304 S.C. 409, 418-
19, 405 S.E.2d 377, 382-83 (1991) (holding the defendant's arrest was lawful when
the arresting officer, while not in possession of the warrant itself, was acting
pursuant to a valid arrest warrant); State v. Grate, 310 S.C. 240, 242, 423 S.E.2d
119, 120 (1992) (holding the defendant's arrest was lawful even though the
arresting officer did not have physical possession of the arrest warrant when the
officer called to verify there was an outstanding warrant for the defendant's arrest).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.