CourtListener 10153360•State v. Phillip Sherman
Texto completo
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.
Phillip Hollis Sherman, Appellant.
Appeal From Greenville County
John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-088
Submitted January 4, 2010 Filed February
3, 2010
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, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport,
all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Phillip
Sherman appeals from his conviction for failure to stop for a blue light. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR,
and the following authorities: State
v. Simpson, 325 S.C. 37, 42, 479 S.E.2d 57, 60 (1996) (holding a ruling in
limine is not a final ruling on the admissibility of evidence, and unless
an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling is
made, the issue is not preserved for review); State v. Benton, 338 S.C.
151, 156-57, 526 S.E.2d 228, 231 (2000) (stating an issue is not preserved for
appeal when the issue is conceded at trial); State v. Avery, 333 S.C.
284, 296, 509 S.E.2d 476, 483 (1998) (holding that when an appellant fails to
object to a jury charge, the issue is not preserved for appeal).
Affirmed.
SHORT, THOMAS, and
KONDUROS, JJ., concur.
[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.
Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.