Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-388 - State v. Nash

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Quincy Maurice Nash, Appellant.


Appeal From Spartanburg County
Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-388
Submitted June 1, 2009 – Filed July 8, 2009   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John M. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Quincy Maurice Nash appeals his convictions and sentences for (1) intent to distribute crack cocaine within one-half mile of school; (2) possession with intent to distribute cocaine within one-half mile of school; (3) possession with intent to distribute cocaine; and (4) possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and/or crack cocaine. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1.  Regarding Nash’s claim the trial court erred in upholding the magistrate’s finding that the no-knock warrant was justified:  Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394 (1997) (holding in order to justify a no-knock entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence); State v. King, 349 S.C. 142, 150, 561 S.E.2d 640, 644 (Ct. App. 2002) (stating a search warrant may issue only upon a finding of probable cause, and "[t]his determination requires the magistrate to make a practical, common-sense decision of whether, given the totality of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”).

2.  Regarding whether use of a tactical team to arrest Nash was unreasonable under the federal and state Constitutions:  In re Michael H., 360 S.C. 540, 546, 602 S.E.2d 729, 732 (2004) (“An issue may not be raised for the first time on appeal.  In order to preserve an issue for appeal, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court.”).

 AFFIRMED.[1]

 HUFF, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.