State v. Kenneth Lovette Young

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: November 5, 2009
• Docket: 2009-UP-505
• Status: Unpublished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.

Kenneth Lovette Young, Appellant.

---

Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-505
Heard October 6, 2009 – Filed November 5, 2009   

---

AFFIRMED

---

Appellate Defender LaNelle DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,

Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia, Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Kenneth Lovette Young appeals the circuit court's refusal to sever his trial from that of his co-defendant, as well as the court's admission of certain items into evidence.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  

1. As to Young's severance motion:  See I'On, LLC v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422, 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000) (holding that in order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have first been raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court); Tupper v. Dorchester County, 326 S.C. 318, 324 n.4, 487 S.E.2d 187, 190 n.4 (1997) (stating an appellant cannot bootstrap an issue for appeal by way of a co-defendant's objection); White v. Livingston, 231 S.C. 301, 307, 98 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1957) (citation and quotation marks omitted) ("[A] party cannot, when a cause is brought up for appellate review, assume an attitude inconsistent with or different from that taken by him at the trial, and [. . .] the parties are restricted to the theory on which the cause was prosecuted or defended in the court below.").

2. As to the admission of items into evidence:  State v. Adams, 377 S.C. 334, 337, 659 S.E.2d 272, 274 (Ct. App. 2008) (recognizing the admission of evidence is left to the discretion of the circuit court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and KONDUROS, J., and LOCKEMY, J., concur.