State v. Antwan Wade

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.

Antwan Wade, Appellant.

Appeal from York County

Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-041

Submitted January 4, 2010 – Filed January
26, 2010   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellant Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best,
South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of
Columbia, and Solicitor Kevin Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Antwan Wade appeals his conviction for
cocaine distribution, arguing that the prosecution improperly bolstered the
testimony of one of the State's witnesses during redirect examination.  We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State
v. Goodwin, 384 S.C. 588, 603, 683 S.E.2d 500, 508 (Ct. App. 2009) ("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. Hoffman,
312 S.C. 386, 393, 440 S.E.2d 869, 873 (1994) ("A contemporaneous
objection is required to properly preserve an error for appellate review."); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("An
issue that was not preserved for review should not be addressed by the Court of
Appeals . . ."); State v. Stroman, 281 S.C. 508, 513, 316 S.E.2d
395, 399 (1984) (“Where one party introduces evidence as to a particular fact
or transaction, the other party is entitled to introduce evidence in
explanation or rebuttal thereof, even though [the] latter evidence would be
incompetent or irrelevant had it been offered initially.”); State v. White,
361 S.C. 407, 415-16, 605 S.E.2d 540, 544 (2004) (holding that a party who
opens the door to evidence cannot complain of its admission).[1]  

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, A.C.J.,
GEATHERS, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

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