State v. Frazier ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • 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.
    Matthew Frazier, Appellant.
    Appellate Case No. 2011-193426
    Appeal From Beaufort County
    Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-280
    Heard June 3, 2013 – Filed June 26, 2013
    AFFIRMED
    Appellate Defender Dayne C. Phillips, of Columbia, for
    Appellant.
    Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
    Attorney General Julie Kate Keeney, both of Columbia,
    for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Matthew Frazier appeals his convictions for trafficking cocaine,
    possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, and simple possession of
    marijuana. He argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress
    evidence found during the execution of a search warrant, which Frazier alleges was
    facially insufficient to establish probable cause. We affirm pursuant to Rule
    220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dupree, 
    354 S.C. 676
    , 687,
    
    583 S.E.2d 437
    , 443 (Ct. App. 2003) ("An informant's controlled buy of drugs can
    constitute probable cause sufficient for a magistrate to issue a warrant."); State v.
    Jones, 
    342 S.C. 121
    , 126-27, 
    536 S.E.2d 675
    , 678 (2000) (concluding a defendant
    in South Carolina may challenge misstatements in a search warrant affidavit);
    State v. Davis, 
    371 S.C. 412
    , 415-16, 
    639 S.E.2d 457
    , 459 (Ct. App. 2006)
    (describing the two-part test to determine if alleged misstatements in an affidavit
    render a search warrant invalid); id. at 416, 639 S.E.2d at 459 (explaining the first
    part of the test requires allegations and proof of either deliberate falsehood or
    reckless disregard for the truth); id. (explaining the second part of the test requires
    the court to determine if an allegedly false affidavit, with the false material set
    aside, is sufficient to establish probable cause).
    AFFIRMED.
    SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2013-UP-280

Filed Date: 6/26/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024