State v. Singleton

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.

Frank Terrance Singleton, III, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002004

Appeal From Kershaw County
D. Craig Brown, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-186
Submitted April 1, 2018 – Filed May 9, 2018

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson,
Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka,
Assistant Attorney General Caroline M. Scrantom, and
Solicitor Daniel Edward Johnson, all of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Forrester, 343 S.C. 637, 642, 541 S.E.2d 837, 840 (2001)
("[M]aking a motion in limine to exclude evidence at the beginning of trial does
not preserve an issue for review because a motion in limine is not a final
determination. The moving party, therefore, must make a contemporaneous
objection when the evidence is introduced."); State v. Atieh, 397 S.C. 641, 646, 725
S.E.2d 730, 733 (Ct. App. 2012) ("A ruling in limine is not final; unless an
objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling procured,
the issue is not preserved for review.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, GEATHERS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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