State v. King

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: March 29, 2010
• Docket: 2010-UP-220
• Status: Unpublished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.

George King, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Kershaw County
Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-220
Submitted March 1, 2010 – Filed March 29, 2010

---

Affirmed

---

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:   George King appeals his convictions for possession of crack cocaine, distribution of crack cocaine within proximity of a park, and simple possession of a Schedule IV drug.  On appeal, King argues the trial court erred in denying his request to challenge the validity of the search warrant during pre-trial motions.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the trial court erred in finding King did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy:  State v. Flowers, 360 S.C. 1, 5, 598 S.E.2d 725, 728 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding an intermittent guest does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy).

2.  As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to conduct a hearing to determine whether the search of the person was unlawful:  State v. Rogers, 361 S.C. 178, 183, 603 S.E.2d 910, 912 (Ct. App. 2004) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review.").  

 AFFIRMED.

 SHORT, WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

---

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