State v. Jones ( 2011 )

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.

Lindy Jones, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Orangeburg County
James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-396
Submitted August 1, 2011 – Filed August 19, 2011   

---

AFFIRMED

---

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor David M. Pascoe, Jr., of Summerville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Lindy Jones appeals his conviction for assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct with a minor.  Jones argues the trial court erroneously instructed the jury assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct is a lesser included offense of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the second degree.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Rule 20(b), SCRCrimP ("[T]he parties shall be given the opportunity to object to the giving [of] . . . an instruction . . . .  Any objection shall state distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds for objection.  Failure to object in accordance with this rule shall constitute a waiver of objection."); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) (finding an issue is preserved for appellate review when it was raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, and the argument presented was on the same ground); and State v. Benton, 338 S.C. 151, 156-57, 526 S.E.2d 228, 231 (2000) (holding an issue regarding a jury charge is not preserved on appeal when appellant argued one ground at trial and argues another ground on appeal). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

---

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