Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-310 - State v. Cochran

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.

Latisha Lee Cochran, Appellant.


Appeal From Florence County
Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-310
Submitted April 2, 2012 – Filed May 16, 2012   


AFFIRMED


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

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs Jr.,  all of Columbia; and Solicitor E.L. Clements III, of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Latisha Lee Cochran appeals her conviction of armed robbery, arguing the trial court erred in admitting a purported confession given under inherently coercive circumstances.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dye, 384 S.C. 42, 46, 681 S.E.2d 23, 26 (Ct. App. 2009) ("On review, the [trial] court's conclusions on issues of fact as to the voluntariness of a confession will not be disturbed unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion."); State v. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527, 566, 647 S.E.2d 144, 164 (2007) (holding the voluntariness of a confession is determined based on "the totality of the circumstances surrounding the defendant's giving the confession" (citation omitted)); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226 (1973) (holding the totality of the circumstances includes "both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation"). 

AFFIRMED.

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


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