State v. King

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.

George King, Appellant.

Appeal From Kershaw County

Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-220

Submitted March 1, 2010 – Filed March 29,
2010

Affirmed

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
and Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor
Warren Blair Giese, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER
CURIAM:   George King appeals his convictions for possession of
crack cocaine, distribution of crack cocaine within proximity of a park, and
simple possession of a Schedule IV drug.  On appeal, King argues the trial
court erred in denying his request to challenge the validity of the search
warrant during pre-trial motions.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the trial court
erred in finding King did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy:  State
v. Flowers, 360 S.C. 1, 5, 598 S.E.2d 725, 728 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding an
intermittent guest does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy).

2.  As to whether the
trial court erred in refusing to conduct a hearing to determine whether the
search of the person was unlawful:  State v. Rogers, 361 S.C. 178, 183, 603 S.E.2d 910, 912 (Ct. App.
2004) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be
preserved for appellate review.").  

 AFFIRMED.

 SHORT, WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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