State v. Altman

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Altman

DecidedAugust 7, 2013

Docket2013-UP-336

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Altman (State v. Altman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Altman, (S.C. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Donald Ray Altman, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-196626

Appeal From York County John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-336 Submitted July 1, 2013 – Filed August 7, 2013

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court]."); State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 411, 401 S.E.2d 168, 169 (1991) ("A defendant must object at his first opportunity to preserve an issue for appellate review."); State v. Garris, 394 S.C. 336, 348, 714 S.E.2d 888, 894-95 (Ct. App. 2011) (finding a defendant's objection to testimony about a photographic lineup was not preserved for appellate review when the defendant did not contemporaneously object and waited until after the State rested its case).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Donald Ray Altman, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-196626

Appeal From York County John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-336 Submitted July 1, 2013 – Filed August 7, 2013

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court]."); State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 411, 401 S.E.2d 168, 169 (1991) ("A defendant must object at his first opportunity to preserve an issue for appellate review."); State v. Garris, 394 S.C. 336, 348, 714 S.E.2d 888, 894-95 (Ct. App. 2011) (finding a defendant's objection to testimony about a photographic lineup was not preserved for appellate review when the defendant did not contemporaneously object and waited until after the State rested its case).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Altman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-altman-scctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack