State v. Baylock

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Baylock

DecidedAugust 8, 2012

Docket2012-UP-482

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Baylock (State v. Baylock) 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. Baylock, (S.C. Ct. App. 2012).

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.

Elijah S. Baylock, Jr., Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-191487

Appeal From Berkeley County R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-482 Submitted July 2, 2012 – Filed August 8, 2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Elijah Solomon Baylock, Jr. appeals his convictions of first- degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor and lewd act on a minor. He argues the trial judge erred when he charged the jury that, pursuant to section 16-3-657 of the South Carolina Code (2003), the victim's testimony did not need to be corroborated. We affirm1 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 judge."); In re Care & Treatment of Corley, 365 S.C. 252, 258, 616 S.E.2d 441, 444 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Constitutional issues, like most others, must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial [judge] to be preserved for appeal."); State v. Stone, 285 S.C. 386, 387, 330 S.E.2d 286, 287 (1985) (finding that in order to preserve an objection to a jury charge, a defendant must object to the charge as given or request an additional charge when afforded the opportunity to do so).

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, 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.

Elijah S. Baylock, Jr., Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-191487

Appeal From Berkeley County R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-482 Submitted July 2, 2012 – Filed August 8, 2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Elijah Solomon Baylock, Jr. appeals his convictions of first- degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor and lewd act on a minor. He argues the trial judge erred when he charged the jury that, pursuant to section 16-3-657 of the South Carolina Code (2003), the victim's testimony did not need to be corroborated. We affirm1 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 judge."); In re Care & Treatment of Corley, 365 S.C. 252, 258, 616 S.E.2d 441, 444 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Constitutional issues, like most others, must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial [judge] to be preserved for appeal."); State v. Stone, 285 S.C. 386, 387, 330 S.E.2d 286, 287 (1985) (finding that in order to preserve an objection to a jury charge, a defendant must object to the charge as given or request an additional charge when afforded the opportunity to do so).

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Baylock, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-baylock-scctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack