State v. Smith, 2021-UP-295

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Parties: The State, Respondent, v. Filiciano Jermaine Smith, Appellant.
• Docket Number: 2021-UP-295,Appellate Case 2018-002039
• Decision Date: 11 August 2021

The State, Respondent,
v.
Filiciano Jermaine Smith, Appellant.

No. 2021-UP-295

Appellate Case No. 2018-002039

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

August 11, 2021

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 June 1, 2021

Appeal From Charleston County Robin B. Stilwell, Circuit Court Judge

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Scott Matthews, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

Filiciano Jermaine Smith appeals his convictions and sentences for first-degree burglary, first-degree criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping, and unlawful carrying of a handgun. On appeal, Smith argues the trial court erred by denying (1) his motion to suppress evidence seized during his unlawful warrantless arrest and (2) his motion to suppress a black latex glove seized during an unlawful search of his residence. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

1. We find Smith's warrantless arrest was lawful. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying Smith's motion to suppress evidence that was seized incident to his arrest. See State v. Alston, 422 S.C. 270, 279, 811 S.E.2d 747, 751 (2018) ("On appeal from a motion to suppress on Fourth Amendment grounds, [the appellate court] applies a deferential standard of review and will reverse only if there is clear error." (quoting Robinson v. State, 407 S.C. 169, 180-81, 754 S.E.2d 862, 868 (2014))); id. ("[T]his deference does not bar [the appellate court] from conducting its own review of the record to determine whether the trial [court]'s decision [was] supported by the evidence." (quoting State v. Tindall, 388 S.C. 518, 521, 698 S.E.2d 203, 205 (2010))); State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 49, 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("The fundamental question in determining the lawfulness of an arrest is whether probable cause existed to make the arrest."); id. ("Probable cause for a warrantless arrest exists when the circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed by the person being arrested."); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-30 (2014) ("The sheriffs and deputy sheriffs of this State may arrest without warrant any and all persons who, within their view,...