State v. Johnson

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.

Timothy Wayne Johnson, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-000608

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-370
Submitted September 1, 2017 – Filed October 11, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Laura Ruth Baer, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Joe Barnette, of
Spartanburg, all 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 judge."); State v. Hoffman, 312 S.C. 386, 393, 440
S.E.2d 869, 873 (1994) ("A contemporaneous objection is required to properly
preserve an error for appellate review."); State v. Atieh, 397 S.C. 641, 646, 725
S.E.2d 730, 733 (Ct. App. 2012) ("A ruling in limine is not final; unless an
objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling procured,
the issue is not preserved for review.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and HILL, JJ., concur.

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