State v. McFarland

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: October 31, 2012
• Docket: 2012-UP-586
• Status: Unpublished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.

Steve McFarland, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2010-168967

Appeal From Lancaster County Paul M. Burch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-586 Submitted October 1, 2012 – Filed October 31, 2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Douglas A. Barfield, Jr., of Lancaster, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Steve McFarland appeals his conviction of shoplifting, third offense, arguing the trial court erred in: (1) refusing to grant McFarland's motion for a continuance and beginning the trial in absentia; (2) sentencing McFarland for contempt; and (3) imposing an excessive sentence because McFarland opted for a jury trial. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant McFarland's motion for a continuance: State v. Babb, 299 S.C. 451, 454, 385 S.E.2d 827, 829 (1989) ("The granting or denial of a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial [court] whose ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice to the appellant."); State v. Ravenell, 387 S.C. 449, 455, 692 S.E.2d 554, 557 (Ct. App. 2010) ("Reversals of refusal of a continuance are about as rare as the proverbial hens' teeth.").

2. As to the remaining issues: State v. Hoffman, 312 S.C. 386, 393, 440 S.E.2d 869, 873 (1994) ("A contemporaneous objection is required to properly preserve an error for appellate review."); State v. Blalock, 357 S.C. 74, 79, 591 S.E.2d 632, 635 (Ct. App. 2003) ("In order to preserve an error for appellate review, a defendant must make a contemporaneous objection on a specific ground."); State v. Passmore, 363 S.C. 568, 583, 611 S.E.2d 273, 281 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Our courts have consistently refused to apply the plain error rule." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and WILLIAMS and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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