State v. Randolph

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.

Linart Randolph, Appellant.

Appeal From Newberry County

 James W. Johnson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-607

Submitted November 1, 2004 – Filed December 6, 2004

AFFIRMED

Harry T. Heizer, Jr. and Joshua Kendrick, both  of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General
John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka,
Assistant Attorney General Derrick K. McFarland, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor William Townes Jones, of Greenwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Appellant, Linart
Randolph was convicted of murder and sentenced to life without parole.  On appeal,
Randolph asserts reversible error in the admission of (1) evidence of his drug
use on the night of the murder and, (2) the written statement of his co-defendant. 
We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2),
SCACR and the following authorities:  ISSUE I:  State v. Myers,
344 S.C. 532, 535, 544 S.E.2d 851, 852-53 (Ct. App. 2001) (finding where defendant
objected at trial on the ground that testimony was irrelevant, he could not
argue on appeal that testimony improperly placed his character at issue); State
v. Dickman, 341 S.C. 293, 295, 534 S.E.2d 268, 269 (2000) (holding a party
cannot argue one ground below and then argue another ground on appeal); State
v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) (stating to
be preserved for appellate review, an issue must be raised to and ruled on by
the trial judge; though a party need not use the exact name of a legal doctrine
in order to preserve an issue, it must be clear that the argument has been presented
on that ground); State v. Haselden, 353 S.C. 190, 196, 577 S.E.2d 445,
448 (2003) (finding the erroneous admission of character evidence is harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt if its impact is minimal in the context of the entire
record); State v. Cheeseboro, 346 S.C. 526, 550, 552 S.E.2d 300, 313
(2001) (holding where there is other properly admitted evidence of conduct demonstrating
the particular character trait in question, there is no reversible error); State
v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502, 507, 435 S.E.2d 859, 862 (1993) (finding any
error in admission of evidence cumulative to other unobjected-to evidence is
harmless); ISSUE II: State v. Hughey, 339 S.C. 439, 453, 529 S.E.2d
721, 728-29 (2000) (holding the trial judge has considerable discretion in ruling
on the admissibility of testimonial and non-testimonial evidence and his determination
of admissibility will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion resulting
in prejudice to the complaining party); State v. Schumpert, 312
S.C. 502, 507, 435 S.E.2d 859, 862 (1993) (finding any error in admission of
evidence cumulative to other unobjected-to evidence is harmless); State v.
Taylor, 333 S.C. 159, 172, 508 S.E.2d 870, 876 (1998) (holding in order
to reverse a case based on the erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence,
prejudice must be shown).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and BEATTY,
JJ., concur.

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