From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Cochran

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
May 16, 2012
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-310 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 16, 2012)

Opinion

2012-UP-310

05-16-2012

The State, Respondent, v. Latisha Lee Cochran, Appellant.

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor E.L. Clements III, of Florence, for Respondent.


Unpublished Opinion

Submitted April 2, 2012

Appeal From Florence CountyMichael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge

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

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor E.L. Clements III, of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

Latisha Lee Cochran appeals her conviction of armed robbery, arguing the trial court erred in admitting a purported confession given under inherently coercive circumstances. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dye, 384 S.C. 42, 46, 681 S.E.2d 23, 26 (Ct. App. 2009) ("On review, the [trial] court's conclusions on issues of fact as to the voluntariness of a confession will not be disturbed unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion."); State v. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527, 566, 647 S.E.2d 144, 164 (2007) (holding the voluntariness of a confession is determined based on "the totality of the circumstances surrounding the defendant's giving the confession" (citation omitted)); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226 (1973) (holding the totality of the circumstances includes "both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation").

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

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Cochran

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
May 16, 2012
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-310 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 16, 2012)
Case details for

State v. Cochran

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. Latisha Lee Cochran, Appellant.

Court:THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: May 16, 2012

Citations

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-310 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 16, 2012)