State v. Walshaw ( 2013 )

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.
Charles Brett Walshaw, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2011-190811
Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-168
Submitted March 1, 2013 – Filed April 24, 2013
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Dayne C. Phillips, of Columbia, for
Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant
Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin S. Brackett, of York, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Sheppard, 391 S.C. 415, 420-21, 706 S.E.2d 16, 19 (2011)
("Our law is clear that a party must make a contemporaneous objection that is ruled
upon by the trial judge to preserve an issue for appellate review."); id. at 421, 706
S.E.2d at 19 (noting constitutional claims are not preserved for review without a
contemporaneous objection at trial (citing State v. Owens, 378 S.C. 636, 638, 664
S.E.2d 80, 81 (2008))); State v. Vang, 353 S.C. 78, 85, 577 S.E.2d 225, 228 (Ct.
App. 2003) (finding the defendant failed to preserve the issue of whether the jury
prematurely deliberated because the defendant neither asked the trial court to
individually question the jurors, nor failed to object to the trial court's ruling, after
receiving a note from the jury and questioning the jury foreman, that further
inquiry was unnecessary).
AFFIRMED.1
SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.