State v. Austin ( 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.

James P. Austin, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Sumter County
W. Jeffrey Young, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-475  
Submitted October 1, 2011 – Filed October 26, 2011

---

AFFIRMED

---

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Ernest A. Finney, III, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  James P. Austin appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine.  He argues the circuit court erred in denying (1) his motion to suppress drug evidence because he was illegally seized and (2) his motion to continue the trial due to the unavailability of a material witness.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the circuit court erred in denying Austin's motion to suppress the drug evidence: State v. Tindall, 388 S.C. 518, 521, 698 S.E.2d 203, 205 (2010) ("On appeals from a motion to suppress based on Fourth Amendment grounds, [an appellate court] applies a deferential standard of review and will reverse if there is clear error."); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n.16 (1968) ("Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may [a court] conclude that a 'seizure' has occurred."); State v. Foster, 269 S.C. 373, 378, 237 S.E.2d 589, 591 (1977) (recognizing "that the police may briefly detain and question a person upon a reasonable suspicion, short of probable cause for arrest, that he is involved in criminal activity").

2.  As to whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Austin's motion for a continuance: State v. Colden, 372 S.C. 428, 435, 641 S.E.2d 912, 916 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The granting of a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the [circuit] court and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion."); id. at 438, 641 S.E.2d at 918 ("[A] party asking for a continuance must show . . . what the party believes the absent witness would testify to and the basis for that belief.").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

---

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