Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-199 - State v. Pollard

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 Court of Appeals

The State, Appellant,

v.

Jimmy C. Pollard, Respondent.


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


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-199
Heard February 18, 2009 – Filed May 15, 2009   


AFFIRMED


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, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Robert M Ariail, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  The State appeals the circuit court's order suppressing drugs seized from Jimmy Pollard's hotel room.  The State argues the circuit court erred by suppressing the drugs because Officer Widmer's knock on Pollard's door did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and Pollard consented to the search.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Butler, 353 S.C. 383, 388, 577 S.E.2d 498, 500 (Ct. App. 2003) (noting in criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only);  State v. Bowman, 366 S.C. 485, 501, 623 S.E.2d 378, 386 (2005) (determining an appellate court's review in Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the trial court's finding); State v. Abdullah, 357 S.C. 344, 349, 592 S.E.2d 344, 347 (Ct. App. 2004) ("On appeal from a suppression hearing, this court is bound by the circuit court's factual findings if any evidence supports the findings."); Gowdy v. Gibson, 381 S.C. 225, 233, 672 S.E.2d 794, 798 (Ct. App. 2008) (stating the court of appeals generally defers to trial judge's findings regarding witness credibility); State v. Tutton, 354 S.C. 319, 325-26, 580 S.E.2d 186, 190 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The determination of a witness's credibility must be left to the trial judge who saw and heard the witness and is therefore in a better position to evaluate his or her veracity."); State v. Kirton, 381 S.C. 7, 23, 671 S.E.2d 107, 114 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The admission or exclusion of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.").

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., SHORT and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.