State v. Rippy

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. Bobby James Rippy, Appellant. Appeal From Dillon County Edward B. Cottingham, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-167 Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed March 7, 2012 AFFIRMED Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor William B. Rogers, Jr., of Bennettsville, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Bobby James Rippy appeals his convictions for second-degree burglary and larceny, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence found at his residence. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 50, 625 S.E.2d 216, 221 (2006) (noting the duty of an appellate court reviewing the issuance of a search warrant is to ensure the magistrate had a substantial basis upon which to conclude that probable cause existed); id. (stating that a magistrate may issue a search warrant upon a finding of probable cause, a determination requiring him "to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place" (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Weston, 329 S.C. 287, 290, 494 S.E.2d 801, 802 (1997) ("A search warrant that is insufficient in itself to establish probable cause may be supplemented by sworn oral testimony."); State v. Arnold, 319 S.C. 256, 260-61, 460 S.E.2d 403, 405-06 (Ct. App. 1995) (holding an affidavit indicating appellant's presence during a burglary in close proximity to the place burglarized and his connection to the place provided the magistrate with a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed to search appellant's apartment). AFFIRMED. WILLIAMS and THOMAS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.