Opinion
Appellate Case No. 2015-001384 Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-321
08-02-2017
The State, Respondent, v. Michael Donta Brooks, Appellant.
Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Deputy Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of Florence, all 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 Florence County
Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Deputy Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of Florence, all for Respondent. PER CURIAM : Michael Donta Brooks appeals his convictions for armed robbery, first-degree burglary, kidnapping, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, and possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a violent offense. Brooks argues the trial court should have suppressed (1) a letter he wrote to an investigator because it was inadmissible as a statement made in the course of plea discussions and (2) a recording of a telephone conversation because the State failed to lay a proper foundation. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and following authorities: 1. As to Issue 1: Rule 410(4), SCRE (providing evidence of "any statement made in the course of plea discussion with an attorney for the prosecuting authority which do not result in a plea of guilty or which result in a plea of guilty later withdrawn" "is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions" (emphasis added)). 2. As to Issue 2: Rule 901(a), SCRE ("The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims."); Rule 901(b), SCRE (giving examples of authentication or identification that conform with the requirements of Rule 901(a) but stating these examples are "[b]y way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation"); Deep Keel, LLC v. Atl. Private Equity Grp., LLC, 413 S.C. 58, 64, 773 S.E.2d 607, 610 (Ct. App. 2015) (stating the burden to authenticate evidence is not high and requires only that the proponent of the evidence offer a satisfactory foundation from which the jury could reasonably find the evidence is authentic).
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. --------
AFFIRMED.
LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and THOMAS, JJ., concur.