State v. Antwan Wade ( 2010 )

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.

Antwan Wade, Appellant.

---

Appeal from York County
Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-041
Submitted January 4, 2010 – Filed January 26, 2010   

---

APPEAL DISMISSED

---

Appellant Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Kevin Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Antwan Wade appeals his conviction for cocaine distribution, arguing that the prosecution improperly bolstered the testimony of one of the State's witnesses during redirect examination.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Goodwin, 384 S.C. 588, 603, 683 S.E.2d 500, 508 (Ct. App. 2009) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court."); State v. Hoffman, 312 S.C. 386, 393, 440 S.E.2d 869, 873 (1994) ("A contemporaneous objection is required to properly preserve an error for appellate review."); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("An issue that was not preserved for review should not be addressed by the Court of Appeals . . ."); State v. Stroman, 281 S.C. 508, 513, 316 S.E.2d 395, 399 (1984) (“Where one party introduces evidence as to a particular fact or transaction, the other party is entitled to introduce evidence in explanation or rebuttal thereof, even though [the] latter evidence would be incompetent or irrelevant had it been offered initially.”); State v. White, 361 S.C. 407, 415-16, 605 S.E.2d 540, 544 (2004) (holding that a party who opens the door to evidence cannot complain of its admission).^[1]  

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, A.C.J., GEATHERS, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

---

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