State v. Harmon

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.

Samuel W.
Harmon, Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County

Ralph F. Cothran, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-080

Submitted February 1, 2011 – Filed
February 24, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J.
Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General Alphonso Simon, Jr., all of Columbia, and
Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Samuel H. Harmon was convicted of
murder, assault and battery with intent to kill, assault with intent to kill,
and possession of a firearm during the commission of violent crime.  Harmon
appeals, alleging the trial court erred in (1) forcing Harmon to concede to the
admission of a co-defendant's written statement in return for the admission of
public records evidencing the co-defendant's conviction and sentence for a
lesser offense, and (2) admitting the written statement because the statement
constituted impermissible hearsay.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1),
SCACR, and the following authorities:

As to issue (1):  State
v. Dicapua, 383 S.C. 394, 399, 680 S.E.2d 292, 294 (2009) (finding in the
absence of force, a party's concession to the admission of evidence waives any
direct challenge to the admissibility of that evidence); State v. Pichardo,
367 S.C. 84, 94, 623 S.E.2d 840, 846 (Ct. App. 2005) (stating parties are bound
by their trial stipulations).

As to issue (2): Dicapua,
383 S.C. at 399, 680 S.E.2d at 294 (indicating concession to the admission of
evidence waives any direct challenge to the admissibility of that evidence); State
v. Rice, 348 S.C. 417, 420, 559 S.E.2d 360, 362 (Ct. App. 2001) (noting
issues not raised to the trial court are not preserved for appellate review). 

AFFIRMED.[1]

FEW, C.J.,
THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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