State v. Brooks

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 Donta Brooks, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2015-001384
Appeal From Florence County
Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-321
Submitted June 1, 2017 – Filed August 2, 2017
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Deputy Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of
Florence, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Michael Donta Brooks appeals his convictions for armed
robbery, first-degree burglary, kidnapping, possession of a weapon during the
commission of a violent crime, and possession of a firearm by a person convicted
of a violent offense. Brooks argues the trial court should have suppressed (1) a
letter he wrote to an investigator because it was inadmissible as a statement made
in the course of plea discussions and (2) a recording of a telephone conversation
because the State failed to lay a proper foundation. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule
220(b)(1), SCACR, and following authorities:
1. As to Issue 1: Rule 410(4), SCRE (providing evidence of "any statement made
in the course of plea discussion with an attorney for the prosecuting authority
which do not result in a plea of guilty or which result in a plea of guilty later
withdrawn" "is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the
defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions"
(emphasis added)).
2. As to Issue 2: Rule 901(a), SCRE ("The requirement of authentication or
identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent
claims."); Rule 901(b), SCRE (giving examples of authentication or identification
that conform with the requirements of Rule 901(a) but stating these examples are
"[b]y way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation"); Deep Keel, LLC v.
Atl. Private Equity Grp., LLC, 413 S.C. 58, 64, 773 S.E.2d 607, 610 (Ct. App.
2015) (stating the burden to authenticate evidence is not high and requires only that
the proponent of the evidence offer a satisfactory foundation from which the jury
could reasonably find the evidence is authentic).
AFFIRMED.
LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.