Opinion ID: 1242729
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Due Process, Equal Protection and Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Text: De La Cruz next asserts that § 44-53-370(e)(2)(c) is violative of substantive due process, equal protection, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. We reject these arguments as they are the identical ones we found meritless in State v. Kiser , 288 S.C. 441, 343 S.E. (2d) 292 (1986). The remaining argument advanced by the appellant is affirmed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23. State v. Williams , 297 S.C. 404, 377 S.E. (2d) 308 (1989) (a magistrate's probable cause determination is entitled to substantial deference by this Court on review); Jones v. City of Columbia , 301 S.C. 62, 389 S.E. (2d) 662 (1990) (definition of probable cause). GREGORY, C.J., and HARWELL, CHANDLER and FINNEY, JJ., concur.