Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-155 - The State v. Anthony Griggs

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.

Anthony Griggs,

Appellant.

 

 

__________

 

Appeal From Greenville County

 G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge

 

__________

 

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-155

Submitted February 1, 2010 – Filed February 23, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

 

 

PER CURIAM: Anthony Griggs was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and trafficking in crack cocaine.  Griggs appeals arguing the trial court should have suppressed drug evidence obtained during a warrantless search of the house.   We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 220(c), SCACR, (stating this court may affirm a trial court's ruling for any reason appearing in the Record on Appeal); State v. McKnight, 291 S.C. 110, 114-15, 352 S.E.2d 471, 473 (1987) (stating a defendant who seeks to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds must demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in connection with the searched premises in order to have standing to challenge the search); State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 112, 603 S.E.2d 594, 596 (2004) ("A legitimate expectation of privacy is both subjective and objective in nature: the defendant must show (1) he had a subjective expectation of not being discovered, and (2) the expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable.").    

 

AFFIRMED.

 

PIEPER, GEATHERS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.



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