State v. Delesline

FACTS

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL
VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT
AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Derrin Delesline,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

Daniel  F.  Pieper, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2005-UP-121

Heard February 8, 2005 – Filed February
16, 2005

AFFIRMED

Jack B. Swerling, 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 Ralph E. Hoisington, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Derrin Delesline appeals his
convictions for distribution of crack cocaine and distribution of crack cocaine
in proximity of a school.  He argues the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
because the indictments did not allege the requisite mental state of knowledge. 
He also argues the court erred in admitting a tape recording made from a wire
worn by a confidential informant and in failing to strike testimony regarding
other drug transactions.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the
following authorities:

1.       The indictments alleged the elements necessary
to convey subject matter jurisdiction: State v. Primus, 349 S.C.
576, 579, 564 S.E.2d 103, 105 (2002) (A court acquires subject matter jurisdiction
over a defendant where “there is an indictment which sufficiently states the
offense, the defendant waives presentment, or the offense is a lesser included
offense of the crime charged in the indictment.”); Browning v. State, 320
S.C. 366, 368, 465 S.E.2d 358, 359 (1995) (“The true test of the sufficiency
of an indictment is not whether it could be made more definite and certain,
but whether it contains the necessary elements of the offense intended to be
charged and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared
to meet.”); State v. Gill, 355 S.C. 234, 584 S.E.2d 432 (Ct. App. 2003)
(holding the element of knowledge is not required in an indictment for the crime
of distribution of crack cocaine).

2.       The issue of whether the trial
court erred in admitting the tape recording is not preserved for review: State
v. Patterson, 324 S.C. 5, 482 S.E.2d 760 (1997) (holding a general objection
that fails to specify the particular ground on which the objection is based
is insufficient to preserve a question for review); York v. Conway Ford,
Inc., 325 S.C. 170, 480 S.E.2d 726 (1997) (stating an objection made in
an off-the-record conference not later placed on the record does not preserve
the issue for review).

3.       The issue of whether the trial
court erred in failing to strike testimony concerning other drug transactions
is not preserved for review: State v. McFadden, 318 S.C. 404, 410, 458
S.E.2d 61, 65 (Ct. App. 1995) (holding issues concerning objectionable testimony
are not preserved for appellate purposes when an objection is sustained if the
objecting party does not move to strike the offending testimony). 

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and STILWELL, JJ., concur.