State v. Blake

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.

Mark Lorenzo Blake Jr., Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2018-002091

Appeal From Charleston County
William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-201
Submitted May 1, 2021 – Filed June 9, 2021

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General William Frederick Schumacher, IV,
both of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of
Charleston, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Mark Lorenzo Blake, Jr. appeals his conviction for attempted
murder and sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On
appeal, Blake argues the circuit court erred by admitting evidence that he could not
legally possess a firearm. Blake failed to make a contemporaneous objection to all
references concerning his illegal possession of a firearm, and Blake himself
induced testimony about his not being permitted to legally possess a firearm
several times throughout trial. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities: See State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142,
587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (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]."); State v.
Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502, 507, 435 S.E.2d 859, 862 (1993) ("A ruling in limine is
not a final ruling on the admissibility of evidence."), overruled on other grounds
by State v. Stukes, 416 S.C. 493, 787 S.E.2d 480 (2016); State v. Carlson, 363 S.C.
586, 595, 611 S.E.2d 283, 287 (Ct. App. 2005) ("A contemporaneous objection is
required to preserve issues for direct appellate review."); Schumpert, 312 S.C. at
507, 435 S.E.2d at 862 ("Unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is
offered and a final ruling made, the issue is not preserved for review."); Carlson,
363 S.C. at 595, 611 S.E.2d at 287 ("A party cannot complain of an error which his
own conduct has induced.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

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