From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Stoudenmire

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Nov 28, 2012
Appellate Case No. 2010-157546 (S.C. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2012)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2010-157546 Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-628

11-28-2012

The State, Respondent, v. Norman Stoudenmire, Appellant.

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, all of Columbia, and Barry Joe Barnette, of Spartanburg, 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 Spartanburg County

J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge


AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, all of Columbia, and Barry Joe Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent. PER CURIAM : Norman Stoudenmire appeals his conviction of murder, arguing the trial court erred in holding his oral and written statements to officers while in custody were freely and voluntarily given. We find that Stoudenmire's statements were freely and voluntarily given and we affirm. As to Stoudenmire's argument that physical contact by the officers during his interrogation prevented his statements from being freely and voluntarily given, we find that this issue was not preserved for appeal as it was not argued in his motion to suppress his statement. See State v. Goodwin, 384 S.C. 588, 603, 683 S.E.2d 500, 508 (Ct. App. 2009) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court."). As to Stoudenmire's argument that the officers intentionally kept his attorney from him during the interrogation, we find that Stoudenmire was read his Miranda rights and never invoked his right to silence or his right to counsel. He never stopped talking during his interrogation and there was no indication that his interrogators knew that Stoudenmire's attorney was in the building. The appellate court in reviewing the trial court's ruling "does not reevaluate the facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence, but simply determines whether the trial court's ruling is supported by any evidence." State v. Saltz, 346 S.C. 114, 136, 551 S.E.2d 240, 252 (2001). None of the testimony indicated that the officers intentionally kept the appellant's attorney from him. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not err in holding that Stoudenmire's statements were freely and voluntarily given.

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Stoudenmire

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Nov 28, 2012
Appellate Case No. 2010-157546 (S.C. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2012)
Case details for

State v. Stoudenmire

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. Norman Stoudenmire, Appellant.

Court:STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 28, 2012

Citations

Appellate Case No. 2010-157546 (S.C. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2012)

Citing Cases

Stoudenmire v. Warden, Perry Corr. Inst.

The PCR court further noted that the voluntariness of Petitioner's confession was addressed on direct appeal…