Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-108 - The State v. Jorge Carpio

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.

Jorge Carpio, Appellant.


Appeal from Aiken County
J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-108
Submitted January 4, 2010 – Filed February 8, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender LaNelle C. DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Jorge Carpio appeals his convictions and sentences for armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant for his residence.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48-49, 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("The trial judge's factual findings on whether evidence should be suppressed due to a Fourth Amendment violation are reviewed for clear error."); State v. Gentile, 373 S.C. 506, 513, 646 S.E.2d 171, 174 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[T]he duty of the reviewing court is to ensure the issuing magistrate had a substantial basis upon which to conclude that probable cause existed."); State v. Herring, Op. No. 26750 (S.C. Sup.Ct. filed Dec. 21, 2009) (Shearouse Adv.Sh. No. 55 at 48-49) (holding supporting affidavit that included description of the incident, the suspect, and other details provided sufficient probable cause to justify issuance of search warrant for defendant's residence).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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