Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-430 - State v. Jackson

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.

Teron Hakeen Jackson, Appellant.


Appeal From Sumter County
R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-430 
Submitted September 30, 2011 – Filed October 3, 2011


AFFIRMED


Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Brendan J. McDonald, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Ernest A. Finney, III, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Teron Hakeen Jackson appeals his convictions for murder, attempted armed robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, and possession of a handgun by a person under eighteen years old, arguing the circuit court erred in admitting his statements to police.  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 [circuit court] 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."); State v. Breeze, 379 S.C. 538, 544, 665 S.E.2d 247, 250 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The test of voluntariness is whether a suspect's will was overborne by the circumstances surrounding the given statement."); State v. Smith, 268 S.C. 349, 354, 234 S.E.2d 19, 21 (1977) (holding the "decisions are voluminous that the signing of a written waiver is usually sufficient" to find an intelligent waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination); In re Williams, 265 S.C. 295, 300, 217 S.E.2d 719, 721-22 (1975) (declining to "adopt a rule under which any inculpatory statement obtained from a minor in the absence of counsel, parent or other friendly adult would be [p]er se inadmissible"); State v. Simmons, 384 S.C. 145, 163-66, 682 S.E.2d 19, 28-30 (Ct. App. 2009) (finding it within the circuit court's discretion to find officers' testimony more credible than that of the defendant in making its voluntariness determination). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


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