State v. Sowell ( 2014 )

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.
India Sowell, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2012-213675
Appeal From Lancaster County
D. Craig Brown, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-226
Submitted May 1, 2014 – Filed June 18, 2014
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe,
both of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003)
("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been
raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court]. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the
trial court will not be considered on appeal."); State v. Moses, 390 S.C. 502, 511,
702 S.E.2d 395, 400 (Ct. App. 2010) ("'[M]aking a motion in limine to exclude
evidence at the beginning of trial does not preserve an issue for review because a
motion in limine is not a final determination. The moving party, therefore, must
make a contemporaneous objection when the evidence is introduced.'" (quoting
State v. Forrester, 343 S.C. 637, 642, 541 S.E.2d 837, 840 (2001))).
AFFIRMED.1
WILLIAMS, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.