State v. Ruffin

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: December 11, 2003
• Docket: 2003-UP-717
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

Mikal J. Ruffin,        Appellant.

---

Appeal From Cherokee County
Gary E. Clary, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-717
Submitted October 15, 2003 – Filed December 11, 2003

---

AFFIRMED

---

Deputy Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General S. Creighton Waters, of Columbia, Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Appellant, Mikal Ruffin, was convicted of murder and attempted armed robbery.  The trial judge sentenced Ruffin to concurrent terms of life imprisonment for the murder and twenty years for the attempted armed robbery.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities:  State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 380, 580 S.E.2d 785, 795 (Ct. App. 2003) (arguments not raised to or ruled upon by the trial court are not preserved for appellate review); State v. Huggins, 336 S.C. 200, 205, 519 S.E.2d 574, 576 (1999) (it is well settled that issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal); State v. Perez, 334 S.C. 563, 565-66, 514 S.E.2d 754, 755 (1999) (issue not raised to and ruled on by trial court is not preserved for appeal); State v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 195, 498 S.E.2d 642, 645 (1998) (where counsel acquiesced in the judge’s limitation of his cross-examination and made no other objections, issue was not properly preserved for review; a party cannot acquiesce to issue at trial and then complain on appeal); State v. Sampson, 317 S.C. 423, 427, 454 S.E.2d 721, 723 (Ct. App. 1995) (unchallenged rulings excluding evidence were law of the case and were sufficient basis for affirmance); State v. Hawkins, 310 S.C. 50, 57, 425 S.E.2d 50, 54 (Ct. App. 1992) (reviewing court may not rule on alleged error in exclusion of testimony unless record on appeal shows fairly what the rejected testimony would have been).  

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, STILWELL, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.