State v. Terek Rasheed Goodwin ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • 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.
    Terek Rasheed Goodwin, Appellant.
    Appellate Case No. 2019-001014
    Appeal From Dorchester County
    Perry M. Buckner, III, Circuit Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-159
    Submitted March 1, 2022 – Filed April 6, 2022
    AFFIRMED
    Tommy Arthur Thomas, of Irmo, for Appellant.
    Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
    Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch,
    Jr., both of Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael
    Pascoe, Jr., of Orangeburg, all for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Terek Rasheed Goodwin appeals his conviction and thirty-year
    sentence for kidnapping, first-degree burglary, and common-law robbery. On
    appeal, he argues the trial court erred in conducting jury qualification outside his
    presence.
    We hold Goodwin failed to preserve this issue for appellate review because he did
    not contemporaneously object to the manner in which the trial court conducted jury
    qualification. See State v. Johnson, 
    363 S.C. 53
    , 58, 
    609 S.E.2d 520
    , 523 (2005)
    ("To preserve an issue for review there must be a contemporaneous objection that
    is ruled upon by the trial court."); State v. Williams, 
    303 S.C. 410
    , 411, 
    401 S.E.2d 168
    , 169 (1991) ("A defendant must object at his first opportunity to preserve an
    issue for appellate review."); Johnson, 
    363 S.C. at 58
    , 
    609 S.E.2d at 523
     ("The
    objection should be addressed to the trial court in a sufficiently specific manner
    that brings attention to the exact error."); id. at 58-59, 
    609 S.E.2d at 523
     ("If a
    party fails to properly object, the party is procedurally barred from raising the issue
    on appeal.").
    AFFIRMED.1
    WILLIAMS, C.J., and KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., concur.
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2019-001014

Filed Date: 4/6/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024