State v. Burton

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.

Steven Burton, Appellant.

Appeal From Aiken County

Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-138

Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed
February 29, 2012   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Tristan M. Shaffer, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Assistant  Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of
Columbia; and Solicitor J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Steven Burton appeals his convictions for
one count of receiving stolen goods and eight counts of violating the Motor
Vehicle Chop Shop Act, arguing investigators used evidence obtained during an
illegal search as the basis for probable cause in support of a search warrant. 
We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority:  State v. Forrester, 343 S.C. 637, 642, 541 S.E.2d 837, 840 (2001) ("In most cases,
making a motion in limine to exclude evidence at the beginning of trial does
not preserve an issue for review because a motion in limine is not a final
determination.  The moving party, therefore, must make a contemporaneous
objection when the evidence is introduced."  (internal alteration, italics,
and quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER,
KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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