State v. Ruffin

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Mikal J. Ruffin,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Cherokee County

Gary E. Clary, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-717

Submitted October 15, 2003 – Filed December 11, 2003

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka,
Assistant Attorney General S. Creighton Waters, of Columbia, Harold W. Gowdy,
III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Appellant, Mikal Ruffin, was
convicted of murder and attempted armed robbery.  The trial judge sentenced
Ruffin to concurrent terms of life imprisonment for the murder and twenty years
for the attempted armed robbery.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR
and the following authorities:  State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 380, 580
S.E.2d 785, 795 (Ct. App. 2003) (arguments not raised to or ruled upon by the
trial court are not preserved for appellate review); State v. Huggins,
336 S.C. 200, 205, 519 S.E.2d 574, 576 (1999) (it is well settled that issues
may not be raised for the first time on appeal); State v. Perez, 334
S.C. 563, 565-66, 514 S.E.2d 754, 755 (1999) (issue not raised to and ruled
on by trial court is not preserved for appeal); State v. Mitchell, 330
S.C. 189, 195, 498 S.E.2d 642, 645 (1998) (where counsel acquiesced in the judge’s
limitation of his cross-examination and made no other objections, issue was
not properly preserved for review; a party cannot acquiesce to issue at trial
and then complain on appeal); State v. Sampson, 317 S.C. 423, 427, 454
S.E.2d 721, 723 (Ct. App. 1995) (unchallenged rulings excluding evidence were
law of the case and were sufficient basis for affirmance); State v. Hawkins,
310 S.C. 50, 57, 425 S.E.2d 50, 54 (Ct. App. 1992) (reviewing court may not
rule on alleged error in exclusion of testimony unless record on appeal shows
fairly what the rejected testimony would have been).  

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, STILWELL, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.