State v. Yonson

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.

Randy Alan
Yonson, Appellant.

Appeal From Sumter County

Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-408

Submitted September 1, 2010 – Filed
September 16, 2010

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliot, and Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor C. Kelly Jackson, of Sumter, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM: Randy A. Yonson appeals his convictions for unlawful
possession of a pistol, possession of a pistol by a person under the age of
twenty-one, possession of a pistol by a person convicted of a crime of
violence, two counts of assault and battery with intent to kill, possession of
a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, two counts of
assaulting a law enforcement officer while resisting arrest, and resisting
arrest with a deadly weapon.  Yonson argues (1) the trial court abused its
discretion in admitting his statement to law enforcement while Yonson was in
the hospital recovering from traumatic gunshot wounds, and (2) his possession
of a pistol by a person under the age of twenty-one conviction should be
reversed in light of State
v. Bolin, 378 S.C. 96,
662 S.E.2d 38 (2008).  We affirm in part
and reverse in part.     

1. Regarding whether the trial court erred
in admitting Yonson's statement to law enforcement, we affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority:  State v.
Forrester, 343 S.C. 637, 642, 541 S.E.2d 837, 840 (2001) ("[M]aking
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.  The moving party, therefore, must make a
contemporaneous objection when the evidence is introduced."). 

2. Regarding Yonson's conviction for possession
of a pistol by a person under the age of twenty-one, we
reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Bolin, 378 S.C. 96, 100, 662 S.E.2d 38, 40
(2008) (holding section 16-23-30(c) of
the South Carolina Code (2003) violates the plain language of article XVII,
section 14 of the South Carolina Constitution).

AFFIRMED IN PART AND
REVERSED IN PART.[1]

SHORT, THOMAS,
and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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