From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Pinkney

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Dec 23, 2013
Appellate Case No. 2011-188769 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2013)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2011-188769 Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-490

12-23-2013

The State, Respondent, v. Reggie Pinkney, Appellant.

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, both of Columbia, 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 Horry County

James B. Lockemy, Circuit Court Judge

Larry B. Hyman, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, both of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Reggie Pinkney appeals his conviction of trafficking cocaine, arguing the trial judge improperly relied on a pre-trial ruling denying a motion to suppress from a proceeding that resulted in a mistrial. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Carlson, 363 S.C. 586, 595, 611 S.E.2d 283, 287 (Ct. App. 2005) ("A party cannot complain of an error which his own conduct has induced."); id. (holding the Appellant could not complain when he "consented to the procedure proposed by the trial [court]"); State v. Whipple, 324 S.C. 43, 51, 476 S.E.2d 683, 687 (1996) ("By proceeding . . . without further objection, [Appellant] waived any right to complain."); State v. Patton, 322 S.C. 408, 412, 472 S.E.2d 245, 247 (1996) ("[T]he trial court's denial of a suppression hearing in this case was harmless and did not prejudice Appellant."); id. at 412, 472 S.E.2d at 248 ("A careful review of the record in this case assures us that the trial court possessed all the necessary information on which to base its ultimate holding that no constitutional violations occurred, and we agree with that holding."). AFFIRMED.

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

FEW, C.J., and PIEPER and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Pinkney

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Dec 23, 2013
Appellate Case No. 2011-188769 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2013)
Case details for

State v. Pinkney

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. Reggie Pinkney, Appellant.

Court:STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 23, 2013

Citations

Appellate Case No. 2011-188769 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2013)