State v. Patrick Bryant

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.

Patrick
Percival Bryant, Appellant.

Appeal From Georgetown County

Michael J. Baxley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-006

Submitted January 4, 2010 – Filed January
21, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Katherine H. Hudgins,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr. all of
Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Patrick
Percival Bryant was convicted of criminal sexual conduct (CSC) with a minor in
the second degree and sentenced to life in prison without parole.  Bryant
appeals, arguing the trial court erred in (1) allowing the State to question
him about details regarding a prior conviction for criminal domestic violence
of a high and aggravated nature (CDVHAN) and (2) admitting into evidence his
indictment for the CDVHAN charge.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR and the following authorities:  ISSUE I:  State
v. Beam, 336 S.C. 45, 52, 518 S.E.2d 297, 301 (Ct. App. 1999) (stating one
may not complain about the admission of evidence where he opened the door to
that evidence); State v. White, 361 S.C. 407, 415-16, 605 S.E.2d 540,
544 (2004) (noting evidence which may otherwise be inadmissible may be properly
admitted when the door is opened to that evidence by the complaining party); Beam,
336 S.C. at 52, 518 S.E.2d at 301(holding when a party introduces evidence
about a particular matter, the other party is entitled to explain it or rebut
it, even if the latter evidence would be incompetent or irrelevant had it been
offered initially); State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 499, 629 S.E.2d 363,
366 (2006) (providing the admission of improper evidence is harmless where the
evidence is merely cumulative to other evidence); State v. Schumpert, 312
S.C. 502, 507, 435 S.E.2d 859, 862 (1993) (stating that any error in admission
of evidence cumulative to other unobjected-to evidence is harmless); ISSUE II:  State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003)
(holding, for an issue to be properly preserved for review, it must be raised
to and ruled upon by the trial court, and issues not so raised and ruled upon
will not be considered on appeal; a party may not argue one ground at trial and
another ground on appeal;  while a party need not use the exact name of a legal
doctrine in order to preserve an argument, it must be clear that the argument
has been presented on that ground).[1]

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, A.C.J.,
GEATHERS, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

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