State v. Hoyle, 4963.

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Citation: 397 S.C. 622,725 S.E.2d 720
• Decision Date: 31 May 2012
• Docket Number: No. 4963.,4963.
• Parties: The STATE, Appellant, v. Mark Allen HOYLE, Respondent.

397 S.C. 622
725 S.E.2d 720

The STATE, Appellant,
v.
Mark Allen HOYLE, Respondent.

No. 4963.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard March 19, 2012.
Decided April 4, 2012.
Rehearing Denied May 31, 2012.

[725 S.E.2d 721]

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Brackett, of York, for Appellant.

John M. Foster, of Rock Hill, for Respondent.

PIEPER, J.

[397 S.C. 623]This appeal arises out of Appellant Mark Allen Hoyle's magistrate's court conviction for driving under the influence (DUI). The circuit court found the magistrate erred by failing to suppress the incident site video recording due to incomplete [397 S.C. 624]Miranda¹ warnings; consequently, the circuit court remanded the case to the magistrate's court for a new trial. On appeal, the State argues the circuit court erred in ordering the suppression of the video recording because the arresting officer gave Hoyle sufficient Miranda warnings in compliance with section 56–5–2953 of the South Carolina Code (Supp.2011). We reverse.

FACTS

On March 21, 2009, Hoyle was charged with DUI. Upon his arrest, the officer advised Hoyle of the following: (1) he had the right to remain silent; (2) anything he said could be used against him in a court of law; (3) he had the right to an attorney; and (4) if he could not afford an attorney, one would be appointed for him prior to questioning. The officer did not advise Hoyle that he had the right to terminate the interrogation at any time and to not answer any further questions. Hoyle was convicted of DUI. Hoyle appealed his conviction, arguing the magistrate's court erred in refusing to dismiss the charge, or in the alternative, erred in failing to suppress certain evidence, because (1) he was not fully advised of his Miranda rights and (2) certain audio portions of the sequence of events were missing.² At the hearing before the circuit court, Hoyle relied on State v. Kennedy, 325 S.C. 295, 479 S.E.2d 838 (Ct.App.1996), and argued the incident site video recording should be suppressed because it did not contain the officer instructing Hoyle of the Miranda warning that a suspect has the “right to terminate the interrogation at any time and not to answer any further questions.” The circuit court agreed, remanded for a new trial, and ordered the incident site video recording be suppressed. This appeal followed.

[397 S.C. 625]STANDARD OF REVIEW

In a criminal appeal from the magistrate's court, the circuit court does not review the matter de novo; rather, the court

[725 S.E.2d 722]

reviews the case for preserved errors raised by appropriate exception. Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Roberts, 393 S.C. 332, 341, 713 S.E.2d 278, 282 (2011). The circuit court “may either confirm the sentence appealed from, reverse or modify it, or grant a new trial.” S.C.Code Ann. § 18–3–70 (Supp.2011). “The appellate court's review in criminal cases is limited to correcting the order of the circuit court for errors of law.” State v. Johnson, 396 S.C. 182, 186, 720 S.E.2d 516, 518 (Ct.App.2011).

LAW/ANALYSIS

The State argues the circuit court erred in suppressing the incident site video recording and remanding for a new trial because Hoyle was given appropriate Miranda warnings in compliance with section 56–5–2953. We agree.

“ ‘All rules of statutory construction are subservient to the one that the legislative intent must prevail if it can be reasonably discovered in the language used, and that language must be construed in the light of the intended purpose of the statute.’ ” State v. Sweat, 386 S.C. 339, 350, 688 S.E.2d 569, 575 (2010) (quoting Broadhurst v. City of Myrtle Beach Election Comm'n, 342 S.C. 373, 380, 537 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000)). The court should look to the plain language of the statute. Binney v. State, 384 S.C. 539, 544, 683 S.E.2d 478, 480 (2009). If the language of a statute is unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, then the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed and the court has no right to impose a different meaning. State v. Gaines, 380 S.C. 23, 33, 667 S.E.2d 728, 733 (2008).

The applicable provisions of the statute in question follow:

(A) A person who violates Section 56–5–2930, 56–5–2933, or 56–5–2945 must have his conduct at the incident site and the breath test site video recorded.

(1)(a) The video recording at the incident site must:

(i) not begin later than the activation of the officer's blue lights;

[397 S.C. 626](ii) include any field sobriety tests administered; and

(iii) include the arrest of a person for a violation of Section 56–5–2930 or Section 56–5–2933, or a probable cause determination in that the person violated Section 56–5–2945, and show the person being advised of his Miranda rights.

S.C.Code Ann. § 56–5–2953(A)(1)(a) (Supp.2011).

To give force to the Constitution's protection against compelled self-incrimination, the United States Supreme Court established in Miranda “certain procedural safeguards that require police to advise criminal suspects of their rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments before commencing custodial interrogation.” Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 201, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989). The Miranda court held that a suspect in custody must be warned of the following rights:

He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.

384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602.

The court also explained that “[o]nce warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease.” Id. at 473–74, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Furthermore, if the suspect decides, after receiving the Miranda warnings, that he wishes to remain silent, the custodial officers must “scrupulously honor[...