State v. Houser

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: December 8, 2021
• Docket: 2019-001611
• Status: Unpublished

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.

Darrin Anthony Houser, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001611

Appeal From Orangeburg County Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge,

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-438 Submitted October 1, 2021 – Filed December 8, 2021

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Victor R. Seeger, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Joshua Abraham Edwards, both of Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of Orangeburg, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Darrin Anthony Houser appeals his convictions for first-degree burglary, attempted armed robbery, and possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a violent crime. On appeal, Houser argues the trial court erred in finding his September 3, 2015 statements to police were voluntary. Houser's issue is not preserved. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 193 n.3, 498 S.E.2d 642, 644 n.3 (1998) ("We have consistently held a ruling in limine is not final, and unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling procured, the issue is not preserved for review."); Burke v. AnMed Health, 393 S.C. 48, 55, 710 S.E.2d 84, 88 (Ct. App. 2011) ("When a party states to the trial court that it has no objection to the introduction of evidence, even though the party previously made a motion to exclude the evidence, the issue raised in the previous motion is not preserved for appellate review.").

AFFIRMED. 1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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