State v. Brannon

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Brannon

DecidedJune 20, 2008

Docket2008-UP-313

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Brannon (State v. Brannon) 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. Brannon, (S.C. Ct. App. 2008).

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Ricky Brannon, Appellant.

Appeal From Cherokee County
Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-313
Submitted June 1, 2008 Filed June 20, 2008

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lanelle C. Durant, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Deborah R. J. Shupe , all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Ricky Brannon appeals his convictions for burglary in the first degree and grand larceny, arguing the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a footprint analysis expert. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502, 507, 435 S.E.2d 859, 862 (1993) (Unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling made, the issue is not preserved for review.); State v. Wood, 362 S.C. 520, 526, 608 S.E.2d 435, 438 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding a party opposing the admission of evidence must object to the evidence when it is introduced because a motion in limine is not a final determination), cert. denied (Aug. 15, 2006); State v. Burton, 326 S.C. 605, 611, 486 S.E.2d 762, 765 (Ct. App. 1997) (Unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling made, the issue is not preserved for review.).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and PIEPER, 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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Ricky Brannon, Appellant.

Appeal From Cherokee County
Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-313
Submitted June 1, 2008 Filed June 20, 2008

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lanelle C. Durant, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Deborah R. J. Shupe , all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Ricky Brannon appeals his convictions for burglary in the first degree and grand larceny, arguing the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a footprint analysis expert. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502, 507, 435 S.E.2d 859, 862 (1993) (Unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling made, the issue is not preserved for review.); State v. Wood, 362 S.C. 520, 526, 608 S.E.2d 435, 438 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding a party opposing the admission of evidence must object to the evidence when it is introduced because a motion in limine is not a final determination), cert. denied (Aug. 15, 2006); State v. Burton, 326 S.C. 605, 611, 486 S.E.2d 762, 765 (Ct. App. 1997) (Unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling made, the issue is not preserved for review.).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Brannon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brannon-scctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack