Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2007-UP-119 - State v. Gilbert

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.

Lari Christine Gilbert, Appellant.


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


Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-119
Submitted March 1, 2007 – Filed March 14, 2007  


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, South Carolina Commission, of Columbia, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM:  Lari Christine Gilbert (Gilbert) appeals the circuit court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence she claims was seized as the result of an unlawful search of her hotel room.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Simpson, 325 S.C. 37, 479 S.E.2d 57, (1996) (holding 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); State v. Carlson, 363 S.C. 586, 611 S.E.2d 283 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding defendant failed to preserve issue for appeal when he responded “No objection” when the previously objected-to photographs were introduced into evidence at trial); State v. Dunbar, 356 S,C, 138, 587 S.E.2d 691 (2003) (holding that issues not persevered for review cannot be addressed on appeal).

AFFIRMED.[1]

HUFF, BEATTY, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.


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