State v. Gray ( 2011 )

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.

Labon D. Gray, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Lancaster County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-261
Submitted May 1, 2011 – Filed June 7, 2011

---

AFFIRMED

---

Appellate Defender Lanelle Cantey Durant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames; all of Columbia, and Solicitor Douglas A. Barfield, Jr., of Lancaster, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Appellant Labon D. Gray appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana, and possession of cocaine base.  On appeal, Gray argues the trial court erred in:  (1) denying his motion to suppress evidence found in a search conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment and (2) denying his motion to suppress evidence admitted with an insufficient chain of custody.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  U.S. v. Scheetz, 293 F.3d 175, 183-84 (4th Cir. 2002) (finding narcotics officers had probable cause to search a vehicle because three officers smelled an odor of marijuana); State v. Tabory, 260 S.C. 355, 365-66, 196 S.E.2d 111, 113-14 (1973) (noting the odor of marijuana along with an untruthful statement to police constituted probable cause to search the vehicle); State v. Hatcher, Op. No. 26950 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed March 21, 2011) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 10 at 83) ("It is unnecessary that the police account for every hand-to-hand transfer of the item; it is sufficient if the evidence demonstrates a reasonable assurance the condition of the item remains the same from the time it was obtained until its introduction at trial.") (internal quotation and citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., PIEPER and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

---

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