Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-012 - State v. Rodriguez

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.

Maria Rodriguez, Appellant.


Appeal From Horry County
Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.   2011-UP-012
Submitted January 1 ,2011 – Filed January 24, 2011


AFFIRMED


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

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh,  Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Maria Rodriguez appeals her conviction for trafficking cocaine, second-offense, in an amount between ten and twenty-eight grams.  On appeal, Rodriguez argues the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding the police's knowledge of Rodriguez's possession of the car and previous police incidents involving Rodriguez and the car.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 
State v. Stanley, 365 S.C. 24, 42-43, 615 S.E.2d 455, 464 (Ct. App. 2005) ("In order to prove constructive possession, the State must show the defendant had dominion and control, or the right to exercise dominion and control, over either the drugs or the premises upon which the drugs are  found."); Id. at 43, 615 S.E.2d at 465 ("The State must show the defendant had dominion or control over the thing allegedly possessed or had the right to exercise dominion or control over it."); State v. Wise, 272 S.C. 384, 387, 252 S.E.2d 294, 295-96 (1979) (finding evidence of the defendant's ownership and operation of the truck where the drugs were found is sufficient to prove the defendant had dominion and control over the drugs).

AFFIRMED.

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


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