Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-MO-023 - Peterson v. State

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


Tony A. Peterson, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.


Appeal From Greenville County
 Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge


Memorandum Opinion No. 2008-MO-023
Submitted April 16, 2008 – Filed May 12, 2008  


AFFIRMED


Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Karen Ratigan, of Columbia, for Respondent.


PER CURIAM:  Following a post-conviction relief (PCR) hearing, we granted petitioner a belated direct appeal pursuant to White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974).  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Issue 1- State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292-93, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) (case should be submitted to the jury if there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence that reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused or from which guilt may be fairly and logically deduced; trial court is concerned only with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight); Issue 2- State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 620 S.E.2d 737 (2005) (warrantless search is permissible incident to a lawful arrest because of legitimate concerns for the safety of the officer and to prevent the destruction of evidence); Issue 3- State v. Saltz, 346 S.C. 114, 136, 551 S.E.2d 240, 252 (2001) (court must look to totality of circumstances to determine if statement was knowingly, intelligibly, and voluntarily made); Issue 4- State v. Ivey, 331 S.C. 118, 123, 502 S.E.2d 92, 94 (1998) (juror’s competence is within the trial court’s discretion and is not reviewable on appeal unless wholly unsupported by the evidence); Issue 5- State v. Williams, 297 S.C. 290, 376 S.E.2d 773 (1989) (party offering drugs into evidence must establish a chain of custody as far as practicable); Issue 6- State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 564 S.E.2d 87 (2002) (exclusion of evidence is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion accompanied by probable prejudice). 

AFFIRMED

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, PLEICONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.