State v. Vincent

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.

David Oneil Vincent, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-001744

Appeal From Kershaw County
Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-073
Submitted February 1, 2020 – Filed March 11, 2020

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Heather Savitz
Weiss, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: David Oneil Vincent appeals his conviction of assault and
battery in the second degree. On appeal, Vincent argues the trial court erred by
admitting a statement he made about being at the scene of the alleged crime to law
enforcement when he was in custody, but had not yet been advised of his
constitutional rights. However, this issue is not preserved for appellate review
because Vincent did not object to the statement being admitted at trial.
Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Thomason, 355 S.C. 278, 288, 584 S.E.2d 143, 148 (2003)
("For an appellate court to review an issue, a contemporaneous objection at the
trial level is required."); State v. Atieh, 397 S.C. 641, 646, 725 S.E.2d 730, 733
(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

WILLIAMS, KONDUROS, and HILL, JJ., concur.

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