State v. Moffat

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, Respondent,

v.

Keremme
Marquese Moffat, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-140

Submitted March 3, 2009 – Filed March 11,
2009  

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant
Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all

of Columbia; Solicitor Kevin S. Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Keremme Marquese Moffat appeals his conviction
for purchasing marijuana, arguing the trial court erred: (1) in admitting
evidence obtained in a search of the alleged seller's residence, and (2) in
denying his motion for summary judgment.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Smith,
337 S.C. 27, 34, 522 S.E.2d 598, 601 (1999) (stating where a defendant did
not object at trial on the same grounds
as raised on appeal, the issue is not preserved for
review); State v. Osborne, 335 S.C. 172, 180, 516 S.E.2d 201, 205 (1999)
("[T]he corroboration rule is satisfied if the State provides sufficient
independent evidence which serves to corroborate the defendant's extra-judicial
statements and, together with such statements, permits a reasonable belief that
the crime occurred.").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. 

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