State v. Kronsberg

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.

Robert T. Kronsberg, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002682

Appeal From Charleston County Roger M. Young, Sr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-444 Submitted September 1, 2016 – Filed October 26, 2016

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Susannah Rawl Cole, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Miller, 375 S.C. 370, 381, 652 S.E.2d 444, 450 (Ct. App. 2007) ("Under Jackson v. Denno, [378 U.S. 368 (1964),] a defendant is entitled to a 'reliable determination as to the voluntariness of his [statement] by a tribunal other than the jury charged with deciding his guilt or innocence.'" (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Fortner, 266 S.C. 223, 226, 222 S.E.2d 508, 510 (1976))); id. at 382, 652 S.E.2d at 450 ("The State bears the burden of showing the statement was voluntary."); id. at 378, 652 S.E.2d at 448 ("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 ("[T]he 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.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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