From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Frazier

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Jun 26, 2013
Appellate Case No. 2011-193426 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 26, 2013)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2011-193426 Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-280

06-26-2013

The State, Respondent, v. Matthew Frazier, Appellant.

Appellate Defender Dayne C. Phillips, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Julie Kate Keeney, 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 Beaufort County

Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge


AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Dayne C. Phillips, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Julie Kate Keeney, both of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM : Matthew Frazier appeals his convictions for trafficking cocaine, possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, and simple possession of marijuana. He argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence found during the execution of a search warrant, which Frazier alleges was facially insufficient to establish probable cause. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dupree, 354 S.C. 676, 687, 583 S.E.2d 437, 443 (Ct. App. 2003) ("An informant's controlled buy of drugs can constitute probable cause sufficient for a magistrate to issue a warrant."); State v. Jones, 342 S.C. 121, 126-27, 536 S.E.2d 675, 678 (2000) (concluding a defendant in South Carolina may challenge misstatements in a search warrant affidavit); State v. Davis, 371 S.C. 412, 415-16, 639 S.E.2d 457, 459 (Ct. App. 2006) (describing the two-part test to determine if alleged misstatements in an affidavit render a search warrant invalid); id. at 416, 639 S.E.2d at 459 (explaining the first part of the test requires allegations and proof of either deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth); id. (explaining the second part of the test requires the court to determine if an allegedly false affidavit, with the false material set aside, is sufficient to establish probable cause).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Frazier

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Jun 26, 2013
Appellate Case No. 2011-193426 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 26, 2013)
Case details for

State v. Frazier

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. Matthew Frazier, Appellant.

Court:STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Jun 26, 2013

Citations

Appellate Case No. 2011-193426 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 26, 2013)