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. Jon Michael Roseboro, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000685

Appeal From Spartanburg County J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-476 Heard September 17, 2015 – Filed October 7, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Benjamin John Tripp, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jon Roseboro appeals his convictions for throwing bodily fluids and resisting arrest, arguing the trial court erred in not dismissing the charges because the arresting officer was "persistently unreasonable in handling [his] arrest and therefore violated [his] Fourth Amendment rights." We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Odom, 412 S.C. 253, 258, 772 S.E.2d 149, 151 (2015) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only. Therefore, this [c]ourt is bound by the trial court's factual findings unless the appellant can demonstrate that the trial court's conclusions either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Sims, 304 S.C. 409, 418- 19, 405 S.E.2d 377, 382-83 (1991) (holding the defendant's arrest was lawful when the arresting officer, while not in possession of the warrant itself, was acting pursuant to a valid arrest warrant); State v. Grate, 310 S.C. 240, 242, 423 S.E.2d 119, 120 (1992) (holding the defendant's arrest was lawful even though the arresting officer did not have physical possession of the arrest warrant when the officer called to verify there was an outstanding warrant for the defendant's arrest).

AFFIRMED.

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