Title: State v. Smith

State: south-carolina

Issuer: South Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court The State, Respondent, v. Donald Loren Smith, Appellant. Appeal From Spartanburg County Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge Memorandum Opinion No. 2007-MO-055 Heard May 2, 2007 Filed September 24, 2007 AFFIRMED Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, and Assistant Attorney General Jason P. Peavy, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brockman, 339 S.C. 57, 66, 528 S.E.2d 661, 666 (2000) (when reviewing a Fourth Amendment search and seizure case, an appellate court must affirm the trial court's ruling if there is any evidence to support the ruling); State v. Smart, 278 S.C. 515, 519, 299 S.E.2d 686, 688 (1982)[1] (appellant must do more than allege a violation of ethical canons to establish need for disqualification); S.C. Const. art. I, § 10 (protecting the right against unreasonable searches, seizures and invasions of privacy); State v. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 360, 580 S.E.2d 778, 784 (Ct. App. 2003) (there is no violation of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), if the affidavit, including the omitted data, still contains sufficient information to establish probable cause). TOAL, C.J., MOORE, PLEICONES, JJ., and Acting Justices E. C. Burnett, III and J. Cordell Maddox, concur. [1] Overruled on other grounds by State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45, 406 S.E.2d 315 (1991).