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
The State, Respondent,
Rodriques Montez Pickens, Appellant.
J. C. Buddy Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-583
Submitted September 1, 2005 – Filed November 16, 2005
Joenathan Shelly Chaplin, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, of Columbia, and Druanne Dykes White, of Anderson, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Rodriques MontezPickens appeals his conviction for trafficking crack cocaine, arguing the trial court erred (1) in failing to suppress crack cocaine that he contends was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, (2) in charging the jury regarding constructive possession and knowledge, and (3) in allowing the State to introduce evidence that improperly commented on his character. None of Pickens’ arguments are preserved for appellate review.
On August 29, 2002, the Anderson County Sherrif’s Office received a complaint that the driver of a black
Blassingame then caught sight of the car and recognized the driver as Pickens. Blassingame informed
Dispatch informed the officers Pickens did not have a driver’s license, so
Pickens was charged with trafficking crack cocaine. A jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to eighteen years incarceration. This appeal followed.
Pickens argues the trial court erred in failing to suppress the crack cocaine that he contends was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We find this issue is not preserved for our review.
In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal. State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003). “Constitutional arguments are no exception to the rule, and if not raised to the trial court are deemed waived on appeal.” State v. Varvil, 338 S.C. 335, 339, 526 S.E.2d 248, 250 (Ct. App. 2000).
Prior to the start of his trial, Pickens made a motion to exclude the crack cocaine the officers seized from the car. Pickens argued the search was conducted without a warrant and was not a valid search incident to arrest. The State argued the officers conducted a valid inventory search which would have led to the inevitable discovery of the crack cocaine regardless of whether the search incident to arrest was valid. In response, Pickens’ counsel stated, “I don’t take any issue with the inventory.” When the trial court questioned Pickens’ counsel regarding the inevitable discovery issue, he stated, “[T] hose issues will be developed with the testimony. My objection was to the search incident to arrest.” The trial court denied the motion to suppress on the basis the inventory search was valid and did not rule on the legality of the search incident to arrest. When the State sought to admit the crack cocaine into evidence at trial, Pickens’ attorney acknowledged that he had no objection.
Pickens’ argument on appeal that the inventory search was illegal is not preserved because he never raised the issue to the trial judge.
Pickens argues the trial court’s jury charge on constructive possession failed to adequately instruct the jury regarding the State’s burden to prove Pickens had knowledge the crack cocaine was concealed in the car. This issue is not preserved for review.
After the trial judge gave the charge, he excused the jury and asked Pickens if he had any objections. Pickens’ attorney responded, “I have no additions or exceptions your honor.” Because Pickens failed to make any objection to the jury charge, we find the adequacy of the instruction is not preserved for our review. State v. Avery, 333 S.C. 284, 296, 509 S.E.2d 476, 483 (1999) (holding a jury charge is not preserved for appellate review unless the party objects); see also Rule 20(b), SCRCP (“Notwithstanding any request for legal instructions, the parties shall be given the opportunity to object to the giving or failure to give an instruction before the jury retires, but out of the hearing of the jury. Any objection shall state distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds for objection. Failure to object in accordance with this rule shall constitute a waiver of objection.”)
Pickens argues the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence that improperly commented on his character. This issue is not preserved for our review.
At trial, Blassingame testified he was working the
We talked to one neighbor who lived right in front of it. Gave us a couple of tags on some vehicles they had observed coming in and out and staying short times. And one of them was a
Lincoln that was occupied by a black male that supposedly came to the residence, would stay only a few minutes and get back in the car and leave.
Pickens once again objected to the testimony on the basis that it was hearsay. The trial judge sustained the objection, ruling the statement was hearsay that went far beyond explaining why the officers were investigating the area. Pickens did not make a motion to strike or request a curative instruction.
On appeal, Pickens argues the aforementioned testimony, when taken together, constituted an improper comment on his character because the statements identified him, as the driver of the
GOOLSBY, ANDERSON, and SHORT, JJ., concur.