State v. Ford

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.

Wilford Gino
Ford, Appellant.

Appeal From Sumter County

Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-407

Submitted September 1, 2010 – Filed
September 16, 2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Cecil Kelly Jackson, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Wilford Gino Ford appeals his conviction
and sentence for second-degree burglary, arguing the trial court erred in
excluding a portion of his evidence and in denying his motion for a directed
verdict.  After thoroughly reviewing the record and briefs and finding neither
of the issues on appeal is preserved, we affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and
the following authorities: 

1. As to
whether the trial court erred in excluding a portion of Ford's evidence:  Ligon
v. Norris, 371 S.C. 625,
634, 640 S.E.2d 467, 472 (Ct. App. 2006) ("An objection withdrawn at trial
constitutes an express waiver of the issue and does not preserve the issue for
appellate review."). 

2. As to
whether the trial court erred in denying Ford's motion for a directed verdict:  State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5-6, 377 S.E.2d 581, 584
(1989) (holding a party who argues one ground for a directed verdict at trial
and an alternative ground on appeal waives his right to argue the issue on
appeal). 

AFFIRMED. 

WILLIAMS,
PIEPER, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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