State v. Phillip Sherman

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedFebruary 3, 2010
Docket2010-UP-088
StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Phillip Sherman (State v. Phillip Sherman) 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. Phillip Sherman, (S.C. Ct. App. 2010).

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.

Phillip Hollis Sherman, Appellant.


Appeal From Greenville County
John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-088
Submitted January 4, 2010 – Filed February 3, 2010   


Affirmed


Appellate Defender LaNelle C. DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Phillip Sherman appeals from his conviction for failure to stop for a blue light.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Simpson, 325 S.C. 37, 42, 479 S.E.2d 57, 60 (1996) (holding a ruling in limine is not a final ruling on the admissibility of evidence, and unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling is made, the issue is not preserved for review);  State v. Benton, 338 S.C. 151, 156-57, 526 S.E.2d 228, 231 (2000) (stating an issue is not preserved for appeal when the issue is conceded at trial); State v. Avery, 333 S.C. 284, 296, 509 S.E.2d 476, 483 (1998) (holding that when an appellant fails to object to a jury charge, the issue is not preserved for appeal).

Affirmed.

SHORT, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


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

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

Related

State v. Benton
526 S.E.2d 228 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2000)
State v. Avery
509 S.E.2d 476 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1998)
State v. Simpson
479 S.E.2d 57 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Phillip Sherman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-phillip-sherman-scctapp-2010.