State v. Watson ( 2013 )

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.
Michael Watson, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2010-173126
Appeal From Saluda County
William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-276
Heard June 4, 2013 – Filed June 26, 2013
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant
Deputy Attorney General David A. Spencer, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington,
for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Michael Watson appeals his convictions for voluntary
manslaughter, pointing and presenting a firearm, and possession of a firearm
during the commission of a violent crime. Watson argues the trial court erred in
(1) denying his motion to reconsider his sentence for voluntary manslaughter, and
(2) refusing to suppress his statement to Officer Cockrell. We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Watson's motion to reconsider his
sentence for voluntary manslaughter: State v. Warren, 392 S.C. 235, 237-38, 708
S.E.2d 234, 235 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The authority to change a sentence rests solely
and exclusively within the discretion of the sentencing judge."); id. at 238, 708
S.E.2d at 235 ("An abuse of discretion occurs where the conclusions of the trial
court are either controlled by an error of law or lack evidentiary support.").
2. As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to suppress Watson's statement to
Officer Cockrell: State v. Miller, 375 S.C. 370, 378, 652 S.E.2d 444, 448 (Ct.
App. 2007) ("The trial [court] determines the admissibility of a statement upon
proof of its voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence."); id. ("On appeal,
the conclusion of the trial [court] as to the voluntariness of a statement will not be
reversed unless so erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion."); id. at 378-79,
652 S.E.2d at 448 ("When reviewing a trial [court]'s ruling concerning
voluntariness, the appellate court does not re-evaluate the facts based on its own
view of the preponderance of the evidence, but simply determines whether the trial
[court]'s ruling is supported by any evidence.").
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C.J., and GEATHERS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.