State v. Pauling

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.

Ackief Pauling, Appellant.

Appeal
From Richland County

John C.
Few, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished
Opinion No.  2010-UP-379

Submitted
June 1, 2010 – Filed August 3, 2010 

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth Franklin-Best,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General A. West Lee, and Solicitor Warren
Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Ackief Pauling appeals his convictions
for first-degree criminal sexual conduct,
kidnapping, armed robbery, and first-degree burglary.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1.  As to whether the trial court erred in
allowing the use of a Spanish interpreter retained by the solicitor's office:  State
v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003) (holding an issue
must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court in order to be
preserved for appellate review).

2.  As to whether the
solicitor's closing argument infected Pauling's trial with unfairness and
denied him his right to due process:  Id. (holding an issue must have
been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court in order to be preserved for
appellate review).

3.  As to whether the trial
court erred in admitting inadmissible hearsay: Austin v. Stokes-Craven Holding Corp., 387 S.C. 22, 39, 691 S.E.2d 135, 143-44 (2010) (recognizing
that when a trial court sustains an objection, the appellate court has nothing
to decide given the objecting party received the relief he sought); see also State v. Thompson, 304 S.C. 85, 87, 403 S.E.2d 139, 140 (Ct. App. 1991)
(holding when an objection is sustained and no further relief is sought, no
issue is preserved for appeal as appellant received all relief requested from the
trial court).

4.  As to whether Pauling's
indictment for first-degree burglary was insufficient:  State v. Gentry,
363 S.C. 93, 103, 610 S.E.2d 494, 500 (2005) (holding an objection to the
sufficiency of an indictment made after the jury is sworn is untimely); see
also S.C. Code Ann. § 17-19-90 (2003) ("Every objection to any
indictment for any defect apparent on the face thereof shall be taken by
demurrer or on motion to quash such indictment before the jury shall be sworn
and not afterwards.").

AFFIRMED.

KONDUROS,
GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 

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