State v. Middleton

CourtListener 10153485Scctapp27.05.2010

Gesamter Gesetzestext

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.

Octavia
Middleton, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-294

Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 27, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L.
Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General Melody J. Brown, and Solicitor
Warren Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Octavia Middleton appeals his
convictions of assault with intent to kill, three counts of assault and battery
of a high and aggravated nature, five counts of armed robbery, two counts of
first-degree burglary, and murder, for which he received an aggregate
fifty-year sentence.  Middleton argues the trial court erred in admitting
photographs of scratches on his arms and in failing to direct a verdict in his
favor.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1.  As to the
admission of photographs:  State v. Beckham, 334
S.C. 302, 310-11, 513 S.E.2d 606, 610 (1999) (affirming the admission of
photographs of defendant's scratched back and arms as relevant and probative
evidence when defendant's accomplice testified defendant fled the murder scene
by running through a wooded area).

2.  As to the
directed verdict motion:  State v. Hicks, 330 S.C. 207, 217, 499 S.E.2d
209, 214 (1998) (holding preservation requires the objection to be contemporaneous); McGee v. Bruce Hosp. Sys., 321 S.C. 340, 347, 468 S.E.2d 633, 637 (1996)
(finding an issue cannot be raised for the first time in a new trial motion). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS,
JJ., concur.

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

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.