THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
Gerald Davis, Appellant.
Appeal From Spartanburg County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-003
Submitted October 22, 2002 – Filed January 6, 2003
Chief Attorney Daniel T. Stacey, of Columbia, for appellant.
Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson; Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Rochester, 301 S.C. 196, 200, 391 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1990) (“On appeal, the conclusion of the trial judge on issues of fact as to voluntariness of a confession will not be disturbed unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion.”); State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001) (holding this Court must “simply determine whether the trial judge’s ruling is supported by any evidence”); State v. Peake, 291 S.C. 138, 139, 352 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1987) (holding the test for determining the admissibility of a statement is whether it is knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given); State v. Childs, 299 S.C. 471, 476, 385 S.E.2d 839, 842 (1989) (holding where there is conflicting evidence about the voluntariness of a confession, the trial court must make a finding of fact as to the statement’s admissibility).
CONNOR, STILWELL, and HOWARD, JJ., concur.
 Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.