State v. Greene

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.

Timothy Emmenuel Greene, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001123

Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-228
Submitted April 1, 2018 – Filed June 6, 2018

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Susan Ranee Saunders, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York,
all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: 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. Wiles, 383 S.C. 151, 156,
679 S.E.2d 172, 175 (2009) ("Generally, a motion in limine is not a final
determination; a contemporaneous objection must be made when the evidence is
introduced."); State v. Moses, 390 S.C. 502, 511, 702 S.E.2d 395, 400 (Ct. App.
2010) ("[I]t [i]s necessary for defense counsel to renew her objection to the
introduction of [a] custodial statement in order to preserve the issue for appellate
review.").

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, THOMAS, and HILL, JJ., concur.

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