Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-443 - State v. Delaney

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.

Lamont Antwan Delaney, Appellant.


Appeal From Charleston County
James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-443
Submitted October 1, 2011 – Filed October 11, 2011


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Lamont Antwan Delaney appeals his convictions for trafficking in cocaine, trafficking in cocaine base, possession with intent to distribute (PWID) cocaine within proximity of a school, PWID cocaine base within proximity of a school, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime.  He argues the circuit court erred in (1) denying his right to confront a witness against him and (2) admitting an involuntary confession.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the circuit court denied Delaney his confrontation rights: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal.").

2.  As to whether the circuit court erred in finding Delaney's confession was voluntary: State v. Franklin, 390 S.C. 535, 539, 702 S.E.2d 568, 570 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The [circuit] court's factual conclusions as to the voluntariness of a statement will not be disturbed on appeal unless so manifestly erroneous as to constitute an abuse of discretion.").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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