State v. Rice

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.

Kendrick Rice, Appellant.

Appeal From Georgetown County

 Paula H. Thomas, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-100

Submitted February 1, 2008 – Filed
February 12, 2008

AFFIRMED

Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, 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, of Columbia, John Gregory Hembree,
of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Kendrick
Rice appeals from his convictions for two counts of first-degree criminal
sexual conduct with a minor and two counts of exposing others to Human
Immunodeficiency Virus.  Rice argues the trial court erred by allowing a
State’s witness to impeach Rice’s testimony with regard to a collateral issue.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the
following authorities:  State v. Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 58-59, 609 S.E.2d
520, 523 (2005) (holding, to preserve an issue for review there must be a
contemporaneous objection that is ruled upon by the trial court with the
objection addressed to the trial court in a sufficiently specific manner that
brings attention to the exact error, and if a party fails to properly object, he
is procedurally barred from raising the issue on appeal); State v. Dunbar,
356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) (noting “[a] party need not use
the exact name of a legal doctrine in order to preserve it, but 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 a party cannot argue one
basis for objection at trial and another ground on appeal). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
KITTREDGE, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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