State v. Daniel McMichael Belk

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.

Daniel McMichael Belk, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2020-001105

Appeal From York County
Daniel Dewitt Hall, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-089
Submitted January 1, 2023 – Filed March 15, 2023

AFFIRMED

Michael Langford Brown, Jr., of MLB Law, of Rock
Hill, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch,
Jr., both of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett,
of York, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Daniel McMichael Belk appeals his conviction of driving under
the influence (DUI), first offense. On appeal, Belk argues the circuit court erred in
affirming the magistrate's denial of his motion to dismiss because the arresting
officer failed to properly advise him of his Miranda 1 rights as required under
section 56-5-2953 of the South Carolina Code (2018). We affirm.

Because the proper remedy under section 56-5-2953 for a Miranda violation was
the suppression of Belk's statements and not a per se dismissal of his DUI charge,
we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v.
Henderson, 347 S.C. 455, 457, 556 S.E.2d 691, 692 (Ct. App. 2001) ("In
reviewing criminal cases, this court may review errors of law only.");
§ 56-5-2953(A)(1)(a)(iii) (stating that a video recording of an individual charged
under S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2930 (2018) must be made showing the arrest and
the person being advised of his Miranda rights); State v. Taylor, 436 S.C. 28, 38,
870 S.E.2d 168, 173 (2022) ("[W]hen the statutory Miranda requirement is not
satisfied, suppression of 'tainted' evidence—not per se dismissal of the DUI
charge—is the proper remedy."); id. ("Miranda is a constitutional construct that
mandates suppression of evidence in certain circumstances, not per se dismissal of
the underlying charge.").

AFFIRMED. 2

WILLIAMS, C.J., THOMAS, J., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

1
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.