State v. Frierson

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Frierson

DecidedFebruary 18, 2003

Docket2003-UP-124

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Frierson (State v. Frierson) 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. Frierson, (S.C. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Roshell Frierson, Appellant.

Appeal From Marion County
John M. Milling, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-124
Submitted January 13, 2003 - Filed February 18, 2003

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter, III, of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of Florence; for respondent.

PER CURIAM: Roshell Frierson appeals his convictions for three counts of murder, two counts and assault and battery with intent to kill, first degree burglary, conspiracy, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, arguing the trial court erred in explaining to the jury that the law requires references to a defendant in a jointly-tried co-defendant=s statement be redacted when the co-defendant does not testify.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Carriker, 269 S.C. 553, 555, 238 S.E.2d 678, 678 (1977) ("The second point [of error] is not before this Court because appellant's counsel made no objection on this point at trial. While appellant's co-defendant did object, the appellant may not utilize the objection of another defendant to gain review."); State v. Brannon, 347 S.C. 85, 89, 552 S.E.2d 773, 775 (Ct. App. 2001) (stating that an "appellant may not bootstrap an issue for appeal by way of a co-defendant's objection"); State v. Hoffman, 312 S.C. 386, 393, 440 S.E.2d 869, 873 (1994) ("The issue which is not properly preserved cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.").

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and SHULER, JJ., concur.

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

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Roshell Frierson, Appellant.

Appeal From Marion County
John M. Milling, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-124
Submitted January 13, 2003 - Filed February 18, 2003

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter, III, of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of Florence; for respondent.

PER CURIAM: Roshell Frierson appeals his convictions for three counts of murder, two counts and assault and battery with intent to kill, first degree burglary, conspiracy, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, arguing the trial court erred in explaining to the jury that the law requires references to a defendant in a jointly-tried co-defendant=s statement be redacted when the co-defendant does not testify.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Carriker, 269 S.C. 553, 555, 238 S.E.2d 678, 678 (1977) ("The second point [of error] is not before this Court because appellant's counsel made no objection on this point at trial. While appellant's co-defendant did object, the appellant may not utilize the objection of another defendant to gain review."); State v. Brannon, 347 S.C. 85, 89, 552 S.E.2d 773, 775 (Ct. App. 2001) (stating that an "appellant may not bootstrap an issue for appeal by way of a co-defendant's objection"); State v. Hoffman, 312 S.C. 386, 393, 440 S.E.2d 869, 873 (1994) ("The issue which is not properly preserved cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.").

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and SHULER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Frierson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-frierson-scctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack