MO-005 - State v. Cardwell
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 Supreme Court The State, Respondent, v. Michael Lee Cardwell, Petitioner. Appellate Case No. 2015-002394 Appeal from Georgetown County Edward B. Cottingham, Circuit Court Judge Memorandum Opinion No. 2019-MO-005 Heard January 11, 2017 – Filed January 23, 2019 AFFIRMED Melissa A. Fried, of Nexsen Pruet, LLC, of Charleston, and Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, both for Petitioner. Attorney General Alan M. Wilson and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Michael Cardwell ("Petitioner") of two counts of unlawful conduct towards a child and two counts of first-degree sexual exploitation of a minor. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to concurrent two-year sentences on the unlawful conduct charges and concurrent three-year sentences for the two counts of first-degree sexual exploitation of a minor with the three-year sentences to run consecutive to the two-year sentences. Petitioner appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a video file seized from the laptop computer of his co-defendant and then-girlfriend, Sarah Cardwell, that showed Petitioner dancing naked with Cardwell's eleven-year-old son and nine-year-old daughter. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Petitioner's motion to suppress in an unpublished opinion. State v. Cardwell, Op. No. 2015-UP-455 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Sept. 9, 2015). We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision and now affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and State v. Sarah Cardwell, Op. No. 27860 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Jan. 23, 2019) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 4). AFFIRMED. BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW, JJ. and Acting Justice Clifton B. Newman, concur.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
