In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,


Jerry Randall Simpson, Jr.        Appellant.

Appeal From Abbeville County
Wyatt T. Saunders, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-003
Submitted October 15, 2003 Filed January 7, 2004


Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General David Spencer, of Columbia; W. Townes Jones, IV, Eighth Circuit Solicitor's Office, of Greenwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Simpson was indicted for driving under the influence (DUI), failing to stop for a law enforcement vehicle, and possession of a sawed-off shotgun. Simpson contends the trial court erred in failing to suppress all evidence resulting from the unreasonable seizure of himself and his automobile. He asserts that the court erred as the stop was unreasonable and the evidence was fruit of a poisonous tree. We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dorce, 320 S.C. 480, 483, 465 S.E.2d 772, 773 (Ct.App. 1995) (the admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge whose ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion); State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 5-6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001) (in criminal cases, this court sits to review errors of law only, and we are bound by the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous); State v. Nelson, 336 S.C. 186, 192, 519 S.E.2d 786, 789 (1999) (an officer who lacks probable cause, but whose observations lead him reasonably to suspect that a particular person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, may detain that person briefly in order to investigate the circumstances that provoke that suspicion); State v. Woodruff, 344 S.C. 537, 546, 544 S.E.2d 290, 295 (Ct.App. 2001) (if the officer's suspicions are confirmed or are further aroused, the stop may be prolonged and the scope enlarged as required by the circumstances).


HUFF, STILWELL, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCAR.