State v. Goffe

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.

Troy Goffe, Appellant.

Appeal From Aiken County

Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-346 

Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed July 6,
2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Troy
Goffe appeals his convictions for first-degree burglary and possession of tools
or other implements capable of being used in crime.  Goffe argues the trial
court erred in failing to instruct the jury the inference of an intent to commit a crime was permissive.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and
the following authorities: Rule 20(b),
SCRCrimP ("Notwithstanding any request for legal instructions, the parties
shall be given the opportunity to object to the giving or failure to give an
instruction before the jury retires, but out of the hearing of the jury. . . . Failure
to object in accordance with this rule shall constitute a waiver of
objection."); State v. Avery, 333 S.C. 284, 296, 509 S.E.2d
476, 483 (1998) (holding when an appellant fails to object to a jury
instruction, the issue is not preserved for appeal). 

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J.,
KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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