State v. Bisnauth

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.

Shawn Roseberry Bisnauth, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-002445

Appeal From York County
Thomas L. Hughston, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-236
Submitted June 1, 2020 – Filed August 12, 2020

AFFIRMED

Katherine Carruth Goode, of Winnsboro; and Jack B.
Swerling, of Columbia, both for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York,
all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Shawn Roseberry Bisnauth appeals his convictions for possession
with intent to distribute cocaine, third or subsequent offense; trafficking in heroin;
trafficking in methamphetamine; and failure to stop for a blue light. He contends
the circuit court erred in admitting evidence discovered based on a search warrant
issued as the result of an insufficient affidavit. He also appeals the circuit court's
denial of his motion to sever the failure to stop charge from trial of the drug
offenses. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Wood, 362 S.C. 520, 526, 608 S.E.2d 435, 438 (Ct. App. 2004)
("In most cases, making a motion in limine to exclude evidence at the beginning of
trial does not preserve an issue for review because a motion in limine is not a final
determination."); id. ("Thus, the moving party must make a contemporaneous
objection when the evidence is introduced."); State v. Tucker, 324 S.C. 155, 164,
478 S.E.2d 260, 265 (1996) ("A motion for severance is addressed to the trial court
and should not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown."); id. ("Charges
can be joined in the same indictment and tried together whe[n] they (1) arise out of
a single chain of circumstances, (2) are proved by the same evidence, (3) are of the
same general nature, and (4) no real right of the defendant has been prejudiced.");
id. at 164-65, 478 S.E.2d at 265 (affirming the circuit court's denial of a motion to
sever because the charges were interconnected and one served as evidence of flight
and identity for the other).

AFFIRMED.1

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

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