From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Cardwell

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court
Jan 23, 2019
Appellate Case No. 2015-002394 (S.C. Jan. 23, 2019)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2015-002394 Memorandum Opinion No. 2019-MO-005

01-23-2019

The State, Respondent, v. Michael Lee Cardwell, Petitioner.

Melissa A. Fried, of Nexsen Pruet, LLC, of Charleston, and Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, both for Petitioner. Attorney General Alan M. Wilson and Assistant 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. Appeal from Georgetown County
Edward B. Cottingham, Circuit Court Judge

AFFIRMED

Melissa A. Fried, of Nexsen Pruet, LLC, of Charleston, and Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, both for Petitioner. Attorney General Alan M. Wilson and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM : A jury convicted Michael Cardwell ("Petitioner") of two counts of unlawful conduct towards a child and two counts of first-degree sexual exploitation of a minor. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to concurrent two-year sentences on the unlawful conduct charges and concurrent three-year sentences for the two counts of first-degree sexual exploitation of a minor with the three-year sentences to run consecutive to the two-year sentences. Petitioner appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a video file seized from the laptop computer of his co-defendant and then-girlfriend, Sarah Cardwell, that showed Petitioner dancing naked with Cardwell's eleven-year-old son and nine-year-old daughter. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Petitioner's motion to suppress in an unpublished opinion. State v. Cardwell, Op. No. 2015-UP-455 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Sept. 9, 2015).

We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision and now affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and State v. Sarah Cardwell, Op. No. 27860 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Jan. 23, 2019) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 4).

AFFIRMED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW, JJ. and Acting Justice Clifton B. Newman, concur.


Summaries of

State v. Cardwell

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court
Jan 23, 2019
Appellate Case No. 2015-002394 (S.C. Jan. 23, 2019)
Case details for

State v. Cardwell

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. Michael Lee Cardwell, Petitioner.

Court:STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Date published: Jan 23, 2019

Citations

Appellate Case No. 2015-002394 (S.C. Jan. 23, 2019)