State v. Barber

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Sandtonyo
Lamont Barber, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

 John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-593

Submitted October 1, 2008 – Filed October
17, 2008

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, South Carolina Commission
on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,

Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., of
Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin S. Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Sandtonyo
Lamont Barber appeals from
his convictions for first-degree criminal
sexual conduct (CSC), kidnapping, and strong armed robbery.  Barber argues the
trial court abused its discretion by allowing a nurse employed by the Rock Hill
Police Department to provide opinion testimony as to the cause of the victim’s
injuries when she was merely qualified as an expert in gathering evidence
through a sexual assault exam.  We find this precise issue
was never raised to the trial court and affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR and the
following authorities:  Wilder Corp.
v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (“It is
axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must
have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for
appellate review.”);  State v.
Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 134, 620 S.E.2d 737, 741 (2005) (finding an issue
not properly preserved for appeal where one ground is raised below and another
ground is raised on appeal);  State v. Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 58-59, 609 S.E.2d 520, 523 (2005)
(holding to preserve an issue for review there must be a contemporaneous objection
that is ruled upon by the trial court with the objection addressed to the trial
court in a sufficiently specific manner that brings attention to the exact
error, and if a party fails to properly object, he is procedurally barred from
raising the issue on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN,
C.J., HUFF, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 

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