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.

Jake Antonio Wilson, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County
Deadra L. Jefferson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-099
Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed February 22, 2012   

AFFIRMED

Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Brendan J. McDonald, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Jake Antonio Wilson appeals his conviction for murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime.  On appeal, Wilson contends the trial court erred in allowing testimony that Wilson had changed his mind and exercised his right to counsel after he had initially waived his rights, thereby violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as applied in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976).  We affirm.[1]  

Doyle recognized evidence of post-arrest silence can be introduced by the prosecution when used to challenge the defendant's testimony as to his behavior following arrest.  State v. Simmons, 360 S.C. 33, 39, 599 S.E.2d 448, 451 (2004).  When post-arrest silence is not offered as substantive evidence of guilt, there is no violation of the fundamental fairness standard of Doyle.  Id. at 40-41, 599 S.E.2d at 451.  Here, evidence exists that the testimony the trial court allowed was not introduced as substantive evidence of guilt.  Rather, the testimony was introduced to show Wilson's statement to police was voluntary and to challenge Wilson's testimony that he was too intimidated to request counsel.  Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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