State v. Altman

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.

Donald Ray Altman, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-196626

Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-336
Submitted July 1, 2013 – Filed August 7, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Dayne C. Phillips, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., 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 (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]."); 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."); State v. Garris, 394 S.C. 336, 348, 714
S.E.2d 888, 894-95 (Ct. App. 2011) (finding a defendant's objection to testimony
about a photographic lineup was not preserved for appellate review when the
defendant did not contemporaneously object and waited until after the State rested
its case).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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