However, based on precedent in comparable situations, we hold the State has the burden of proof on these two points. See State v. Green, 440 S.C. 292, 304, 890 S.E.2d 761, 768 (2023) (holding that when a defendant objects to the State’s attempted use of post-arrest silence for impeachment purposes and the defendant asserts that Miranda warnings were given, the burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant did not receive Miranda warnings prior to his silence); Brewer, 438 S.C. at 45, 882 S.E.2d at 160 ("Even if a defendant was advised of her Miranda rights but nevertheless chose to speak, ‘[t]he burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that h[er] rights were voluntarily waived.’ "); State v. Hart, 436 S.C. 153, 160, 871 S.E.2d 202, 205 (Ct. App. 2022)
However, based on precedent in comparable situations, we hold the State has the burden of proof on these two points. See State v. Green, 440 S.C. 292, 304, 890 S.E.2d 761, 768 (2023) (holding that when a defendant objects to the State's attempted use of post-arrest silence for impeachment purposes and the defendant asserts that Miranda warnings were given, the burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant did not receive Miranda warnings prior to his silence); Brewer, 438 S.C. at 45, 882 S.E.2d at 160 ("Even if a defendant was advised of her Miranda rights but nevertheless chose to speak, '[t]he burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that h[er] rights were voluntarily waived.'"); State v. Hart, 436 S.C. 153, 160, 871 S.E.2d 202, 205 (Ct. App. 2022) ("Part of the State's burden during [a suppression hearing] is to prove that the statement was voluntary and taken in compliance with Miranda." (quoting State v. Creech, 314 S.C. 76, 84, 441 S.E.2d 635, 639 (Ct. App. 1993))).
2. We find there is evidence to support the resentencing court's factual findings. See State v. Green, 440 S.C. 292, 300, 890 S.E.2d 761, 765 (2023) ("In criminal cases, this [c]ourt sits to review errors of law only and is 'bound by the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.'" (quoting State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 5-6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001))); State v. Shuler, 344 S.C. 604, 620, 545 S.E.2d 805, 813 (2001) ("A finding is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by the record.").