State v. Thompson, Appellate Case No. 2012–213141.
Decision Date | 12 August 2015 |
Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2012–213141.,No. 5341.,5341. |
Citation | 413 S.C. 590,776 S.E.2d 413 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Alphonso Chaves THOMPSON, Appellant. |
Michael Patrick Scott, of Nexsen Pruet, LLC, of Charleston, and Chief Appellate Defender, Robert Michael Dudek, of Columbia, for appellant.
Attorney General, Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Mark Reynolds Farthing, and Assistant Attorney General, Mary Williams Leddon, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Barry Joe Barnette, of Spartanburg, for respondent.
Alphonso Chaves Thompson appeals from his trafficking in cocaine, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, and possession with intent to distribute marijuana convictions. Thompson contends the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion to suppress all evidence found as the result of an illegal search, (2) denying his motion to suppress his confession, and (3) denying his motion for a directed verdict on the charge of possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. We affirm.
Following issuance of a search warrant for 120 River Street1 in Spartanburg, South Carolina, officers discovered cocaine, marijuana, various guns, and certain drug and gun related items at the residence.2 Thompson had been arrested at his business pursuant to an arrest warrant and was transported to the River Street address as the search warrant was being executed. During the search, Thompson confessed that the marijuana and cocaine found in the home were his. He was thereafter charged in a two count indictment with trafficking in more than four hundred grams of cocaine and possession of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a violent crime. He was also charged in a separate indictment with possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
Thompson moved to suppress all of the evidence obtained as a result of the search warrant, which included the marijuana, cocaine, and weapons recovered from the warrant, as well as his confession. Thompson argued the affidavit in support of the search warrant included stale information and conclusory statements, it failed to set forth the reliability or basis of knowledge of the confidential reliable informants referred to in the affidavit, and it lacked specific facts giving the issuing judge3 a basis to believe the evidence would be found at 120 River Street, and therefore there was no probable cause to support the issuance of the search warrant. The trial court denied this motion. Thompson also made a separate motion to suppress his statement to police, which the trial court also denied. Following the close of evidence by the State, Thompson moved for a directed verdict with respect to the weapons charge. The trial court likewise denied this directed verdict motion, as well as Thompson's renewal of this motion after presentation of his defense.
Upon submission of the case to the jury, Thompson was found guilty on all charges. The trial court then sentenced him to concurrent sentences of twenty-five years on the trafficking charge, five years on the weapons charge, and five years on the possession with intent to distribute charge.
On May 13, 2010, Investigator Chris Raymond, with the Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office, executed an affidavit setting forth the following information in support of issuance of a search warrant for 120 River Street:
On appeal, Thompson contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress all of the evidence found as a result of the illegal search of 120 River Street. In particular, he argues the affidavit failed to demonstrate veracity and basis of knowledge of the numerous individuals providing information for the warrant, it failed to provide a sufficient link to the River Street home to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Patrick v. Warden
...'provides defense against anyone who may attempt to rob the trafficker of his drugs or drug profits.'"); see also State v. Thompson, 776 S.E.2d 413, 610-11 (S.C. Ct. App. 2015) (finding sufficient evidence of constructive possession of firearm to go to a jury considering a charge under § 16......
-
Wigington v. State
... ... WIGINGTON, Petitionerv.STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.Appellate Case No. 2011193670.No. 5340.Court of Appeals of South Carolina.Heard Feb ... See Thompson v. State, 340 S.C. 112, 115, 531 S.E.2d 294, 296 (2000) ; Rule 71.1(e), ... ...
-
State v. Thompson
...the motion to suppress the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed Thompson's convictions and sentences. See State v. Thompson , 413 S.C. 590, 776 S.E.2d 413 (Ct. App. 2015). We granted Thompson's request for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision. Because we find the......