State v. Terry

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,

v.

Shandell J.
Terry, Appellant.

Appeal From Hampton County

Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-668

Submitted December 1, 2008 – Filed
December 8, 2008   

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman M. Rapoport, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Issac Stone, III, of Beaufort, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Shandell
J. Terry appeals his convictions and sentences for trafficking in crack cocaine, possession
of crack cocaine within one-half mile of a school, trafficking in cocaine, and possession
of cocaine with intent to distribute within one-half mile of a school, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion
to suppress because law enforcement lacked probable cause to arrest him.  We affirm[1] 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) (finding there
is no need for a subsequent objection where the witness introducing the
evidence which was the subject of the motion in limine was the
first witness at trial, there was no evidence taken between the motion in limine and the witness’s testimony, and the trial court did not have an
opportunity to change its ruling); State v. Wood, 362 S.C. 520, 526, 608
S.E.2d 435, 438-39 (Ct. App. 2004) (explaining a motion in limine to exclude evidence at beginning of trial does not preserve an issue for review
because a motion in limine is not a final determination;
therefore, the moving party must make a contemporaneous objection when the evidence
is introduced). 

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON,
HUFF, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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