State v. Talford

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.

Sederick
Antoine Talford, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-387

Submitted June 1, 2009 – Filed July 8,
2009   

AFFIRMED

Robert A. Muckenfuss, of Charlotte, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,

Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Sederick Antoine Talford was tried in absentia and convicted of simple possession of cocaine.  He appeals his
conviction, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the
cocaine because it was seized as the result of an unlawful detention.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:  State v. Forrester, 343 S.C. 637, 642, 541 S.E.2d
837, 840 (2001) ("In most cases,
'[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.'") (citation omitted); State
v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 193 n.3, 498 S.E.2d 642, 644 n.3 (1998)
("We have consistently held a ruling in limine is not final, and unless an
objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling
procured, the issue is not preserved for review.") (citation omitted); State v. King, 349 S.C.
142, 149, 561 S.E.2d 640, 643 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding the issue of whether the
trial court erred in admitting crack cocaine into evidence was not preserved
for review when defense counsel moved in limine to suppress the drugs but
failed to renew the motion when the drugs were actually admitted into
evidence).

AFFIRMED.[1]

HEARN, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur

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