State v. Johnson

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.

Untonyo Ferjearl Johnson, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-001673

Appeal From Calhoun County
Maite Murphy, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-071
Submitted February 1, 2020 – Filed March 11, 2020

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Taylor Davis Gilliam, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Jonathan Scott Matthews, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of
Orangeburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Untonyo Ferjearl Johnson appeals his convictions of attempted
murder, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, and
possession of a weapon by a person convicted of a violent crime. On appeal,
Johnson argues the trial court erred by (1) admitting eyewitness identification from
a single photograph and (2) admitting Johnson's statement to law enforcement
officers because it was coerced. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and
the following authorities:

As to whether the trial court erred in admitting his identification and his statement
to law enforcement: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94
(2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have
been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court]. Issues not raised and ruled upon
in the trial court will not be considered on appeal."); State v. Sheppard, 391 S.C.
415, 420-21, 706 S.E.2d 16, 19 (2011) ("[A] party must make a contemporaneous
objection that is ruled upon by the trial [court] to preserve an issue for appellate
review."); State v. Mueller, 319 S.C. 266, 268, 460 S.E.2d 409, 410 (Ct. App.
1995) ("A ruling on the [pretrial] motion is preliminary, and is subject to change
based on developments at trial."); id. ("Because the evidence developed during trial
may warrant a change in the ruling, the losing party must renew his objection at
trial when the evidence is presented in order to preserve the issue for appeal.").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, KONDUROS, and HILL, JJ., concur.

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