State v. Delesline

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: February 16, 2005
• Docket: 2005-UP-121
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FACTS

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.

Derrin Delesline,        Appellant.

---

Appeal From Charleston County
Daniel  F.  Pieper, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2005-UP-121
Heard February 8, 2005 – Filed February 16, 2005

---

AFFIRMED

---

Jack B. Swerling, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Ralph E. Hoisington, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Derrin Delesline appeals his convictions for distribution of crack cocaine and distribution of crack cocaine in proximity of a school.  He argues the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the indictments did not allege the requisite mental state of knowledge.  He also argues the court erred in admitting a tape recording made from a wire worn by a confidential informant and in failing to strike testimony regarding other drug transactions.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.       The indictments alleged the elements necessary to convey subject matter jurisdiction: State v. Primus, 349 S.C. 576, 579, 564 S.E.2d 103, 105 (2002) (A court acquires subject matter jurisdiction over a defendant where “there is an indictment which sufficiently states the offense, the defendant waives presentment, or the offense is a lesser included offense of the crime charged in the indictment.”); Browning v. State, 320 S.C. 366, 368, 465 S.E.2d 358, 359 (1995) (“The true test of the sufficiency of an indictment is not whether it could be made more definite and certain, but whether it contains the necessary elements of the offense intended to be charged and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet.”); State v. Gill, 355 S.C. 234, 584 S.E.2d 432 (Ct. App. 2003) (holding the element of knowledge is not required in an indictment for the crime of distribution of crack cocaine).

2.       The issue of whether the trial court erred in admitting the tape recording is not preserved for review: State v. Patterson, 324 S.C. 5, 482 S.E.2d 760 (1997) (holding a general objection that fails to specify the particular ground on which the objection is based is insufficient to preserve a question for review); York v. Conway Ford, Inc., 325 S.C. 170, 480 S.E.2d 726 (1997) (stating an objection made in an off-the-record conference not later placed on the record does not preserve the issue for review).

3.       The issue of whether the trial court erred in failing to strike testimony concerning other drug transactions is not preserved for review: State v. McFadden, 318 S.C. 404, 410, 458 S.E.2d 61, 65 (Ct. App. 1995) (holding issues concerning objectionable testimony are not preserved for appellate purposes when an objection is sustained if the objecting party does not move to strike the offending testimony). 

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and STILWELL, JJ., concur.