Opinion
2012-UP-356
06-13-2012
The State, Respondent, v. Marshall Heath Collins, Appellant.
Assistant Appellant Defender Dayne C. Phillips, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor W. Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Submitted May 1, 2012
Appeal From Pickens County G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge.
Assistant Appellant Defender Dayne C. Phillips, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor W. Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Marshall Heath Collins appeals his convictions of trafficking more than ten grams of methamphetamine and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, arguing the trial court erred in (1) refusing to suppress the items seized from his backpack after a traffic stop and (2) refusing to suppress the handgun seized from his backpack when police did not perform a plain feel test first. We affirmpursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
1. As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the items seized from the backpack: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal.").
2. As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the handgun: 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."). Even if the issue were preserved, we would affirm. See State v. Moultrie, 316 S.C. 547, 551, 451 S.E.2d 34, 37 (Ct. App. 1994) ("A warrantless search that precedes a formal arrest is nonetheless valid if the arrest quickly follows." (footnote omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.