Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-548 - State v. Young

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.

Corvin Young, Appellant.


Appeal From Spartanburg County
Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-548
Submitted December 1, 2010 – Filed December 17, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Corvin Young appeals his conviction of discharging a firearm into a dwelling, arguing the trial court erred in ruling that his request for counsel was ambiguous.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Rochester, 301 S.C. 196, 200, 391 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1990) ("On appeal, the conclusion of the trial judge on issues of fact as to the voluntariness of a [statement] will not be disturbed unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion."); Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 461-62 (1994) (holding if a suspect's request for counsel "is not an unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel, the officers have no obligation to stop questioning him");  Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 485 (1981) (holdingofficers may continue with an interrogation after the accused requests counsel if the accused "initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police").    

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and SHORT and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur. 


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