State v. Howard Thompson III

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.

Howard Thompson
III, Appellant.

Appeal from Anderson County

Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-102

Submitted January 4, 2010 – Filed February
4, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster,
Chief Deputy Attorney General Josh W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney
General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch,
Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Christina T. Adams, of Anderson, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Howard
Thompson III appeals his conviction for criminal sexual conduct with a minor,
first degree, following a trial by jury.  Thompson argues that the circuit
court erred by not obtaining an intelligent waiver of his right to counsel and by
overruling his objection.  We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1.  As to Thompson's decision
to proceed pro se:  State v. Howard, 384 S.C. 212, 219, 682 S.E.2d 42,
46 (Ct. App. 2009) (an argument must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial
judge in order to be preserved for appellate review). 

2.  As to the testimony of
victim's mother:  State v. Patterson, 324 S.C. 5, 482 S.E.2d 760 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1997) (appellant must state the grounds
of an objection to the trial judge in order to preserve it for appellate
review); State v. Rice, 375 S.C. 302, 323, 652 S.E.2d 409, 419 (Ct. App.
2007) ("A general objection which does not specify the particular ground
on which the objection is based is insufficient to preserve a question for
review.").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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