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.

Jarminski Rasheik Cook, Appellant.

Appeal From Kershaw County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-545
Submitted December 1, 2011 – Filed December 6, 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, Assistant  Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, and Solicitor Daniel E. Johnson, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Jarminski Rasheik Cook appeals his convictions for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, possession of marijuana, and trafficking in cocaine, arguing the circuit court erroneously admitted drug evidence found in his apartment before a search warrant arrived.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Tindall, 388 S.C. 518, 521, 698 S.E.2d 203, 205 (2010) ("On appeals from a motion to suppress based on Fourth Amendment grounds, [an appellate court] applies a deferential standard of review and will reverse if there is clear error."); State v. Bailey, 276 S.C. 32, 36, 274 S.E.2d 913, 915 (1981) (recognizing consent as an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement); State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 443, 706 S.E.2d 324, 327 (2011) ("[T]he two elements needed to satisfy the plain view exception are:  (1) the initial intrusion which afforded the authorities the plain view was lawful and (2) the incriminating nature of the evidence was immediately apparent to the seizing authorities."); State v. Abdullah, 357 S.C. 344, 352, 592 S.E.2d 344, 349 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Under the plain view doctrine, any object falling within the plain view of a law enforcement officer who is lawfully in a position to view the object is subject to lawful seizure.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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