State v. Holliday

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.

Christopher Ryan Holliday, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212010

Appeal From York County
Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-196
Submitted May 1, 2014 – Filed May 21, 2014

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, both of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Goodwin, 384 S.C. 588, 603, 683 S.E.2d 500, 508 (Ct. App.
2009) ("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, 405 S.C. 263,
280, 747 S.E.2d 194, 203 (Ct. App. 2013) ("To preserve an issue regarding the
admissibility of evidence, a contemporaneous objection must be made."); id.
(explaining the failure to object when evidence is offered constitutes a waiver of
the right to have the issue considered on appeal); State v. Wilson, 389 S.C. 579,
583, 698 S.E.2d 862, 864 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[A]n issue will not be preserved for
review where the trial court sustains a party's objection to improper testimony and
the party does not subsequently move to strike the testimony or for a mistrial.").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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