State v. Lecroy

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. Steven Lecroy, Appellant. Appeal From Richland County J. Michelle Childs, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-434 Submitted October 1, 2011 – Filed October 11, 2011 AFFIRMED Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey Durant, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Daniel E. Johnson, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Steven Lecroy appeals his convictions for third-offense trafficking in methamphetamine, second-offense possession of a controlled substance, and second-offense possession of marijuana, arguing the circuit court erred in allowing the admission of (1) drug evidence found at his residence and (2) his statement claiming ownership of the drugs found at his residence. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to whether the circuit court erred in admitting drug evidence found in Lecroy's home pursuant to a search warrant: 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."); State v. Weston, 329 S.C. 287, 290, 494 S.E.2d 801, 802 (1997) ("A search warrant may issue only upon a finding of probable cause."); State v. Rutledge, 373 S.C. 312, 317-18, 644 S.E.2d 789, 791-92 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding a magistrate had substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed to issue a search warrant of a residence based on the evidence, which consisted of an anonymous tip, confirmation the individual identified by the informant lived at the address, the defendant's prior convictions for marijuana, and marijuana found in the trash can in front of the defendant's residence). 2. As to whether the circuit court erred in admitting Lecroy's statement claiming ownership of the drug evidence found at his residence: State v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 193 n.3, 498 S.E.2d 642, 644 n.3 (1998) (finding "a ruling in limine is not final, and unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling procured, the issue is not preserved for review" (citation omitted)). AFFIRMED. SHORT, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.