State v. Cook

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Cook

DecidedJune 3, 2015

Docket2015-UP-270

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Cook (State v. Cook) 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. Cook, (S.C. Ct. App. 2015).

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.

Roderquiz Rozelle Cook, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000819

Appeal From Lexington County Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-270 Heard April 15, 2015 – Filed June 3, 2015

AFFIRMED

Erica Bedenbaugh McElreath, of Lawton Law Firm, LLC, of Mount Pleasant, and Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of Columbia, both for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka; all of Columbia, and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Roderquiz Rozelle Cook appeals his convictions for murder, attempted armed robbery, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery, arguing he was deprived of a fair trial because the State failed to promptly disclose four pieces of evidence in violation of the Brady v. Maryland1 disclosure rule and Rule 5, SCRCrimP. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693–94 (2003) ("[F]or an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the [circuit court]. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the [circuit] court will not be considered on appeal." (citation omitted)); State v. Whipple, 324 S.C. 43, 51, 476 S.E.2d 683, 687 (1996) (finding a defendant "waived any right to complain" of inadequate time to review newly produced materials after the circuit court granted a delay and the defendant sought no further time, expressly conceded he was ready to proceed, and "proceed[ed] to trial without further objection" (citations omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and HUFF and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

1 371 U.S. 812 (1962).

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.

Roderquiz Rozelle Cook, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000819

Appeal From Lexington County Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-270 Heard April 15, 2015 – Filed June 3, 2015

AFFIRMED

Erica Bedenbaugh McElreath, of Lawton Law Firm, LLC, of Mount Pleasant, and Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of Columbia, both for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka; all of Columbia, and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Roderquiz Rozelle Cook appeals his convictions for murder, attempted armed robbery, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery, arguing he was deprived of a fair trial because the State failed to promptly disclose four pieces of evidence in violation of the Brady v. Maryland1 disclosure rule and Rule 5, SCRCrimP. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693–94 (2003) ("[F]or an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the [circuit court]. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the [circuit] court will not be considered on appeal." (citation omitted)); State v. Whipple, 324 S.C. 43, 51, 476 S.E.2d 683, 687 (1996) (finding a defendant "waived any right to complain" of inadequate time to review newly produced materials after the circuit court granted a delay and the defendant sought no further time, expressly conceded he was ready to proceed, and "proceed[ed] to trial without further objection" (citations omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and HUFF and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

1 371 U.S. 812 (1962).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Cook, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cook-scctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack