State v. James ( 2019 )

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.
Homer Arthur James, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2016-002046
Appeal From Bamberg County
R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-037
Submitted November 1, 2018 – Filed January 23, 2019
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for
Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Vann Henry Gunter, Jr., both of
Columbia; and Solicitor James Strom Thurmond, Jr., of
Aiken, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Breeze, 379 S.C. 538, 543, 665 S.E.2d 247, 250 (Ct. App.
2008) ("Our role when reviewing a trial court's ruling concerning the admissibility
of a statement upon proof of its voluntariness is not to reevaluate the facts based on
our view of the preponderance of the evidence."); id. ("Rather, our standard of
review is limited to determining whether the trial court's ruling is supported by any
evidence."); id. ("Thus, on appeal the trial court's findings as to the voluntariness
of a statement will not be reversed unless they are so erroneous as to show
an abuse of discretion."); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389, 529 S.E.2d 528,
539 (2000) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on
an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary
support."); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966) ("[T]he prosecution
may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from
custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of
procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.");
State v. Whitner, 380 S.C. 513, 518, 670 S.E.2d 655, 658 (Ct. App. 2008)
("Custodial interrogation entails questioning initiated by law enforcement officers
after a [suspect] has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his or her
freedom of action in any significant way."); id. ("Interrogation can be either
express questioning or its functional equivalent and includes words or actions on
the part of police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) the
police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.");
Breeze, 379 S.C. at 544, 665 S.E.2d at 250 ("[T]he Fifth Amendment does not act
to provide a uniform prohibition against the taking of any and all statements made
by a suspect to law enforcement officials."); State v. Medley, 417 S.C. 18, 29, 787
S.E.2d 847, 853 (Ct. App. 2016) ("The failure to suppress evidence for possible
Miranda violations is harmless if the record contains sufficient evidence to prove
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." (quoting State v. Lynch, 375 S.C. 628, 636, 654
S.E.2d 292, 296 (Ct. App. 2007))); id. (noting that "overwhelming evidence of . . .
guilt renders any error in the admission of . . . incriminating statements harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt").1
AFFIRMED.2
KONDUROS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.
1
To the extent James argues his Sixth Amendment rights were violated, we find
that argument is unpreserved. See State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d
691, 693-94 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it
must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court]. Issues not raised and
ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal.").
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.