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

The State, Respondent,

v.

Dorlisa T. Breazeal-Young, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County
Robin B. Stilwell, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-488
Submitted October 1, 2011 – Filed October 31, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey Durant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor W. Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Dorlisa T. Breazeal-Young appeals her conviction for breach of trust greater than five thousand dollars, arguing the trial court erred in admitting into evidence receipt books listed on the return to the search warrant of her home as miscellaneous documents in a black bag.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) (stating "[t]he admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion," which "occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law"); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-140 (2003) (commanding the officer executing a warrant issued under this section to "make and deliver a signed inventory of any articles seized by virtue of the warrant, which shall be delivered to the judicial officer to whom the return is to be made");  State v. Corns, 310 S.C. 546, 552, 426 S.E. 2d 324, 326 (Ct. App. 1992) (holding the listing on a return of the items seized pursuant to a search warrant is a ministerial act); State v. Weaver, 374 S.C. 313, 323, 649 S.E.2d 479, 484 (2007) (finding "the State's failure to comply with the statutory ministerial requirement does not void the warrant and the evidence can not be excluded on this ground" absent a showing of prejudice caused by this failure). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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