City of Rock Hill v. Pickett

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.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

City of Rock Hill, Appellant,

v.

Ronnie Pickett, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2012-208206

Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-130
Submitted February 1, 2014 – Filed March 26, 2014

REVERSED

Solicitor Christopher Edward Barton, of Rock Hill, for
Appellant.

Michael Langford Brown, Jr., of The Law Offices of
Michael L. Brown, Jr., of Rock Hill, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: This appeal arises from Ronnie Pickett's conviction in municipal
court for driving with an unlawful alcohol concentration (DUAC). The circuit
court reversed Pickett's DUAC conviction, finding the arresting officer failed to
provide sufficient Miranda1 warnings as required by section 56-5-2953 of the
South Carolina Code (Supp. 2013). The City of Rock Hill (City) appeals, arguing
the circuit court erred in reversing Pickett's conviction because the Miranda
warnings were sufficient. We reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authorities: Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478-79 (holding a suspect in custody
must be warned prior to any questioning that "he has the right to remain silent, that
anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to
the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be
appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires"); State v. Hoyle, 397
S.C. 622, 627, 725 S.E.2d 720, 723 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[T]he right to terminate the
interrogation at any time and to not answer any further questions is not a required
Miranda warning.").

REVERSED.2

HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

1
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.