Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2005-UP-488 - State v. Drakeford

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

Tremayne Drakeford,        Appellant.


Appeal From York County
Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-488
Submitted August 1, 2005 – Filed August 16, 2005


AFFIRMED


Acting Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General W. Rutledge Martin, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Tremayne Drakeford appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of crack with intent to distribute, possession of cocaine within proximity of a school, and possession of crack within proximity of a school.  He argues the trial court erred in refusing to suppress evidence of drugs as the result of an illegal arrest.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities: State v. Forrester, 343 S.C. 637, 642, 541 S.E.2d 837, 840 (2001) (stating that in most cases, making an in limine motion to exclude evidence does not preserve an issue for review; to preserve an issue for review a party must make a contemporaneous objection when the evidence is introduced at trial); State v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 193 n. 3, 498 S.E.2d 642, 644 n. 3 (1998) (“We have consistently held a ruling in limine is not final, and unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling procured, the issue is not preserved for review.”).

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, HUFF, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.   


[1]  Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.