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,
Sandtonyo Lamont Barber, Appellant.
Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-593
Submitted October 1, 2008 – Filed October 17, 2008
Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, 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 Harold M. Coombs, Jr., of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin S. Brackett, of York, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Sandtonyo Lamont Barber appeals from his convictions for first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC), kidnapping, and strong armed robbery. Barber argues the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a nurse employed by the Rock Hill Police Department to provide opinion testimony as to the cause of the victim’s injuries when she was merely qualified as an expert in gathering evidence through a sexual assault exam. We find this precise issue was never raised to the trial court and affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR and the following authorities: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (“It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review.”); State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 134, 620 S.E.2d 737, 741 (2005) (finding an issue not properly preserved for appeal where one ground is raised below and another ground is raised on appeal); State v. Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 58-59, 609 S.E.2d 520, 523 (2005) (holding to preserve an issue for review there must be a contemporaneous objection that is ruled upon by the trial court with the objection addressed to the trial court in a sufficiently specific manner that brings attention to the exact error, and if a party fails to properly object, he is procedurally barred from raising the issue on appeal).
HEARN, C.J., HUFF, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.