Opinion
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-443
10-11-2011
The State, Respondent, v. Lamont Antwan Delaney, Appellant.
Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.
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.
Appeal From Charleston County
James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM : Lamont Antwan Delaney appeals his convictions for trafficking in cocaine, trafficking in cocaine base, possession with intent to distribute (PWID) cocaine within proximity of a school, PWID cocaine base within proximity of a school, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. He argues the circuit court erred in (1) denying his right to confront a witness against him and (2) admitting an involuntary confession. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
1. As to whether the circuit court denied Delaney his confrontation rights: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal.").
2. As to whether the circuit court erred in finding Delaney's confession was voluntary: State v. Franklin, 390 S.C. 535, 539, 702 S.E.2d 568, 570 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The [circuit] court's factual conclusions as to the voluntariness of a statement will not be disturbed on appeal unless so manifestly erroneous as to constitute an abuse of discretion.").
AFFIRMED.
HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.