State v. Willard, No. 4250.

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtStilwell
Citation647 S.E.2d 252
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Joshua WILLARD, Appellant.
Decision Date31 May 2007
Docket NumberNo. 4250.
647 S.E.2d 252
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Joshua WILLARD, Appellant.
No. 4250.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard April 10, 2007.
Decided May 31, 2007.

[647 S.E.2d 253]

Appellate Defender LaNelle C. DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

STILWELL, J.:


Joshua Willard appeals his conviction for trafficking methamphetamine. We affirm.

FACTS

William Eugene Adams (Informant) was arrested on a family court bench warrant and found with a quantity of methamphetamine. Officer Kevin Smith notified Officer John Sherfield, a narcotics officer. Sherfield went

647 S.E.2d 254

to the jail and met with Informant. Informant told Officer Sherfield he and Joshua Willard were related, that Informant had purchased drugs from Willard in the past, and he intended to purchase drugs from Willard that day. Informant agreed to set up the buy and Officer Sherfield agreed to "try to help" Informant on his drug charge in exchange for his cooperation. Informant and Willard had not set a meeting place for the buy and Officer Sherfield directed Informant to arrange for the meeting to take place at a local movie theater parking lot.

Using Sherfield's mobile telephone, Informant called Willard. A transcription of the conversation was introduced into evidence:

Willard: Hello.

Informant: Hey.

Willard: Yo.

Informant: What's up man?

Willard: What's up?

Informant: . . . I dunno, I'm trying to figure that out with you man . . . . . . I've been shooting smooth, just wanna know where you at, where I need to be[.]

Willard: I've been

Informant: You can't come to Union man?

Willard: Yeah I can come to Union.

Informant: Alright.

Willard: Hey, where you gonna be at?

Informant: Uhhhhh come to the movie theater parking lot man.

Willard: . . . . . . come see you.

Informant: What you mean the house or something?

Willard: Yeah I mean I'm getting ready to meet up with somebody and it's gonna take a . . . . . .

Informant: Okay.

Willard: . . . I'm in Union already.

Informant: Just meet me at the movie theater at the same time.

Willard: Alright.

Informant: Alright.

Sherfield testified the phrase "shooting smooth" meant smoking methamphetamine. Sherfield had no previous experience with Informant but testified Informant accurately described Willard's black Honda Civic that had dark tinted windows. Sherfield also claimed Willard had been identified as being involved in drug transactions with methamphetamine by other informants in the past, although he had never been arrested.

The telephone call on Sherfield's mobile phone to Willard originated at the car dock area of the Union County jail. Sherfield admitted there was a magistrate on duty at the courthouse in the same location at the time. However, Sherfield believed he had reasonable suspicion to search Willard's car and question him without a warrant from the magistrate.

Later that day, Officer Kitchens radioed Sherfield and told him he had spotted Willard within a half mile of the movie theater. Sherfield's mobile phone rang, reporting a call from the number Informant called earlier. Sherfield did not answer. Constable Billy Bennett arrived at the theater in a green pickup truck. Kitchens was in the parking lot and watched Willard drive into the parking lot. Officer Smith also pulled into the parking lot. Sherfield pulled in and the four officers converged on Willard's car, blocking it in. Informant was not present, as he had already been booked and incarcerated.

Kitchens testified he asked Willard and the other occupant of his vehicle, a male, to exit the car. After the men exited the car, Sherfield explained their rights to them. Sherfield asked Willard "where the drugs were." Willard denied any knowledge of drugs. Sherfield held up his mobile phone and said "you (sic) been calling my phone." Willard "dropped his head and said they're in the console...." Kitchens approached the vehicle and found 17.46 grams of methamphetamine, digital scales, and $1,012 in cash.

At trial, the court heard pre-trial motions, including Willard's motion to suppress the drugs. Officers Sherfield and Kitchens testified. The court denied the motion finding, inter alia, Willard consented to the search.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In criminal cases, an appellate court sits to review errors of law only.

647 S.E.2d 255

Therefore, an appellate court is bound by the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48, 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006). The same standard of review applies to preliminary factual findings in determining the admissibility of certain evidence in criminal cases. State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 5-6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001). Our review in Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the trial court's finding. State v. Butler, 353 S.C. 383, 388, 577 S.E.2d 498, 500-01 (Ct.App.2003).

DISCUSSION

Willard argues...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • The State v. Taylor, No. 4687.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 13, 2010
    ...accord State v. Sanders, 388 S.C. 292, 696 S.E.2d 592 (App.2009) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 16 at 80); State v. Willard, 374 S.C. 129, 133, 647 S.E.2d 252, 255 (Ct.App.2007).LAW/ANALYSIS Taylor argues the trial court erred in admitting the drug evidence because the officers lacked reasonable s......
  • State v. Brannon, No. 4428.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 18, 2008
    ...stopped." State v. Padgett, 354 S.C. 268, 273, 580 S.E.2d 159, 162 (Ct.App.2003); see also State v. Willard, 374 S.C. 129, 134, 647 S.E.2d 252, 255 (Ct. App.2007). Probable cause for a warrantless arrest exists when the circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are suffici......
  • Brown v. Green Tree Services, LLC, C.A. No. 2:06-2777-PMD.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • February 28, 2008
    ...Indeed, as the Court of Appeals of South Carolina noted, "each case turns on its particular facts." Rhodes, 374 S.C. at 127, 647 S.E.2d at 252. --------------- ...
  • State v. Kotowski, Appellate Case No. 2016-000842
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 15, 2019
    ...is more than a general hunch but less than what is required for probable cause." 427 S.C. 129 State v. Willard , 374 S.C. 129, 134, 647 S.E.2d 252, 255 (Ct. App. 2007). "An additional factor to consider when determining whether reasonable suspicion exists is the officer's experien......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • The State v. Taylor, No. 4687.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 13, 2010
    ...accord State v. Sanders, 388 S.C. 292, 696 S.E.2d 592 (App.2009) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 16 at 80); State v. Willard, 374 S.C. 129, 133, 647 S.E.2d 252, 255 (Ct.App.2007).LAW/ANALYSIS Taylor argues the trial court erred in admitting the drug evidence because the officers lacked reasonable s......
  • State v. Brannon, No. 4428.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 18, 2008
    ...stopped." State v. Padgett, 354 S.C. 268, 273, 580 S.E.2d 159, 162 (Ct.App.2003); see also State v. Willard, 374 S.C. 129, 134, 647 S.E.2d 252, 255 (Ct. App.2007). Probable cause for a warrantless arrest exists when the circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are suffici......
  • Brown v. Green Tree Services, LLC, C.A. No. 2:06-2777-PMD.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • February 28, 2008
    ...Indeed, as the Court of Appeals of South Carolina noted, "each case turns on its particular facts." Rhodes, 374 S.C. at 127, 647 S.E.2d at 252. --------------- ...
  • State v. Kotowski, Appellate Case No. 2016-000842
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 15, 2019
    ...is more than a general hunch but less than what is required for probable cause." 427 S.C. 129 State v. Willard , 374 S.C. 129, 134, 647 S.E.2d 252, 255 (Ct. App. 2007). "An additional factor to consider when determining whether reasonable suspicion exists is the officer's experien......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT