State v. Walshaw

Full title: The State, Respondent, v. Charles Brett Walshaw, Appellant.

Court: STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Apr 24, 2013

Appellate Case No. 2011-190811 (S.C. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2013)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2011-190811 Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-168

04-24-2013

The State, Respondent, v. Charles Brett Walshaw, Appellant.

Appellate Defender Dayne C. Phillips, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin S. Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

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.

Appeal From York County

John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Dayne C. Phillips, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin S. Brackett, of York, for Respondent. PER CURIAM : Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Sheppard, 391 S.C. 415, 420-21, 706 S.E.2d 16, 19 (2011) ("Our law is clear that a party must make a contemporaneous objection that is ruled upon by the trial judge to preserve an issue for appellate review."); id. at 421, 706 S.E.2d at 19 (noting constitutional claims are not preserved for review without a contemporaneous objection at trial (citing State v. Owens, 378 S.C. 636, 638, 664 S.E.2d 80, 81 (2008))); State v. Vang, 353 S.C. 78, 85, 577 S.E.2d 225, 228 (Ct. App. 2003) (finding the defendant failed to preserve the issue of whether the jury prematurely deliberated because the defendant neither asked the trial court to individually question the jurors, nor failed to object to the trial court's ruling, after receiving a note from the jury and questioning the jury foreman, that further inquiry was unnecessary). AFFIRMED. ¹

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

SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.