Williams v. State ( 2015 )

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 Supreme Court
Jared Williams, Petitioner,
v.
State of South Carolina, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2013-001042
Appeal From Greenville County
D. Garrison Hill, Trial Judge
G. Edward Welmaker, Post-Conviction Relief Judge
Memorandum Opinion No. 2015-MO-042
Submitted May 19, 2015 – Filed July 15, 2015
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Benjamin John Tripp, of Columbia,
for Petitioner.
Attorney General Alan M. Wilson and Karen C. Ratigan,
Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General, both of
Columbia, for Respondent.
CHIEF JUSTICE TOAL: This Court granted a writ of certiorari to provide
Petitioner with a belated review of any direct appeal issues pursuant to White v.
State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974). Petitioner asserts that the trial judge
erred in admitting a statement he made to police the morning after his arrest,
arguing that despite an earlier waiver of his Miranda1 rights, the statement was not
made knowingly and voluntarily. We affirm the ruling of the trial judge pursuant
to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Rochester, 301
S.C. 196, 200, 391 S.E.2d 244, 246 (1990) ("Once a voluntary waiver of the
Miranda rights is made, that waiver continues until the individual being questioned
indicates that he wants to revoke the waiver and remain silent or circumstances
exist which establish that his 'will has been overborne and his capacity for self-
determination critically impaired.'" (quoting State v. Moultrie, 273 S.C. 60, 62, 254
S.E.2d 294, 295 (1979))); State v. Smith, 259 S.C. 496, 499, 192 S.E.2d 870, 872
(1972) ("[A] confession is not necessarily invalid because the Miranda warnings
are not repeated at each stage of the interrogation process, but [courts should] look
to the circumstances of each case to determine whether the defendant, having been
once warned, voluntarily and intelligently waived his rights." (citations omitted));
see also Rochester, 301 S.C. at 200, 391 S.E.2d at 247 ("On appeal, the conclusion
of the trial judge 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.").
AFFIRMED.
PLEICONES, BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur. HEARN, J., not
participating.
1
Miranda v. Arizona, 84 U.S. 436 (1964).