State v. Smith

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.

Delwyn Smith, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

E. C. Burnett, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-081

Submitted January 4, 2011 – Filed February
24, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H.
Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliot, and Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, all of Columbia; and Solicitor
Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Delwyn Smith appeals his convictions for grand
larceny, breaking into an automobile, and two counts of forgery.  He argues the
trial court erred in admitting as prior bad acts testimony of earlier drug use and
automobile break-ins committed by him.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Sweet, 374
S.C. 1, 5, 647 S.E.2d 202, 205 (2007) ("To properly preserve an issue for
review there must be a contemporaneous objection that is ruled upon by the
trial court."); State v. Harris, 351 S.C. 643, 652, 572 S.E.2d 267,
272 (2002) (holding an argument not made at trial is not preserved for appeal); State v. Saltz, 346 S.C. 114, 129, 551 S.E.2d 240, 248 (2001) ("The requirement that a party move to strike objectionable
testimony applies when an objection has been sustained.").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF and
LOCKEMY, JJ., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.

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