State v. Wright

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: January 11, 2017
• Docket: 2017-UP-005
• Status: Unpublished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.

Robert Lee Wright, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001023

Appeal From Charleston County Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-005 Submitted December 1, 2016 – Filed January 11, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Margaret Graham Boykin, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, all for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Rios, 388 S.C. 335, 341, 696 S.E.2d 608, 612 (Ct. App. 2010) (stating a defendant "abandoned his request for jury charges on involuntary manslaughter and self-defense when he acquiesced and asked the trial court" for different charges); id. (holding a defendant could not argue an issue on appeal when the defendant waived appellate review of the issue by conceding it at trial).1

AFFIRMED.2

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

1 The doctrine of futility is inapplicable to this appeal. See State v. Passmore, 363 S.C. 568, 584, 611 S.E.2d 273, 282 (Ct. App. 2005) ("[O]ur courts have developed the doctrine of futility, which recognizes that in circumstances whe[n] it would [have] be[en] futile to raise an objection to the trial [court], failure to raise the objection will be excused." (emphasis added)). 2 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.