State v. Knight

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.

Ray Dwaine Knight, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

 Paul E. Short, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

 Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.2005-UP-575

Submitted  October 1, 2005 – Filed November 2, 2005  

AFFIRMED

Adrian Edward Cooper, of Rock Hill, for Appellant

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster
Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh

Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer; all of Columbia, Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Ray Knight appeals his convictions for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine.  Specifically, Knight argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained by the officers in their investigative stop.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR and the following authorities:  State v. Wannamaker, 346 S.C. 495, 499, 552 S.E.2d 284, 286 (2001) (holding an in limine ruling is not final and does not preserve the issue for appellate review); State v. King, 349 S.C. 142, 149-50, 561 S.E.2d 640, 643-44 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding an in limine motion to suppress drugs must be renewed at the time the drugs are admitted into evidence); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694-95 (2003) (stating that in order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge).

AFFIRMED.[1]

HEARN, C.J., STILWELL and KITTREDGE, J.J. concur.

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