Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-121 - State v. David

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals


The State,        Respondent,

v.

Clifton Ronald David,        Appellant.


Appeal From Marlboro County
J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-121
Submitted December 23, 2003 – Filed February 25, 2004



AFFIRMED


Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R. J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Jay E. Hodge, of Darlington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Clifton Ronald David was convicted of strong-arm robbery and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment.  He appeals, contending the trial court erred in admitting his written statements in violation of Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964).  Having concluded oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issue raised by David, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR, and affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, because the point raised by David is manifestly without merit.  See State v. Saltz, 346 S.C. 114, 136, 551 S.E.2d 240, 252 (2001) (stating the trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused when determining whether a defendant’s statement was voluntary); id. at 136, 551 S.E.2d at 252 (noting the trial court’s conclusions regarding the voluntariness of a statement will not be disturbed on appeal unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion); id. (“When reviewing a trial court's ruling concerning voluntariness, this Court does not reevaluate the facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence, but simply determines whether the trial court’s ruling is supported by any evidence.”); State v. Hughes, 336 S.C. 585, 594, 521 S.E.2d 500, 505 (1999) (stating that absent coercive police conduct, there is no basis for finding a confession constitutionally involuntary); State v. Crawley, 349 S.C. 459, 465, 562 S.E.2d 683, 686 (Ct. App. 2002) (finding officer’s testimony regarding the defendant’s appearance and actions during interrogation supported trial court’s conclusion that the defendant’s statements were voluntary despite any withdrawal from alcohol and drugs); State v. Kennedy, 325 S.C. 295, 305, 479 S.E.2d 838, 843 (Ct. App. 1996), (stating the trial court must assess the totality of the surrounding circumstances, including the characteristics of the defendant and the details of the interrogation when determining whether the defendant’s will was overborne), aff’d as modified, 333 S.C. 426, 510 S.E.2d 714 (1998).

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.