From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Oct 12, 2022
No. 2022-UP-380 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2022)

Opinion

2022-UP-380 Appellate Case 2018-001688

10-12-2022

Adonis Williams, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., 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.

Submitted September 1, 2022

Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled November 16, 2022

Appeal From Richland County James R. Barber, Trial Judge J. Derham Cole, Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR). Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR court's finding that Petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari on Petitioner's Question One and proceed with a review of the direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986). We deny certiorari on Petitioner's Questions Two through Ten.

On direct appeal, Petitioner argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress information from his cell phone and finding the phone was abandoned. We hold Petitioner abandoned his phone. See State v. Frasier, Op. No. 28117 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Sept. 28, 2022) (Howard Adv. Sh. No. 35 at 12, 17) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis. This dual inquiry means we review the trial court's factual findings for any evidentiary support, but the ultimate legal conclusion . . . is a question of law subject to de novo review."). We hold Petitioner "relinquished his reasonable expectation of privacy" by leaving his phone in a place where he did not live and making no efforts to recover his phone. See State v. Brown, 423 S.C. 519, 522, 815 S.E.2d 761, 763 (2018) ("Under a standard abandonment analysis, 'the question is whether the defendant has, in discarding the property, relinquished his reasonable expectation of privacy.'" (quoting State v. Dupree, 319 S.C. 454, 457, 462 S.E.2d 279, 281 (1995))). Petitioner's remaining arguments regarding the text messages are not properly before this court because Petitioner did not raise them in his initial brief. See State v. Wakefield, 323 S.C. 189, 191, 473 S.E.2d 831, 832 (Ct. App. 1996) (stating an issue in the "reply brief should not be considered on appeal because all issues must be argued in the initial briefs").

AFFIRMED.

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

KONDUROS, HEWITT, and VINSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Oct 12, 2022
No. 2022-UP-380 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2022)
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:Adonis Williams, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Court:Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: Oct 12, 2022

Citations

No. 2022-UP-380 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2022)