Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-UP-668 - State v. Terry

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.

Shandell J. Terry, Appellant.


Appeal From Hampton County
Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-668
Submitted December 1, 2008 – Filed December 8, 2008   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender LaNelle C. DuRant, 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 Issac Stone, III, of Beaufort, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Shandell J. Terry appeals his convictions and sentences for trafficking in crack cocaine, possession of crack cocaine within one-half mile of a school, trafficking in cocaine, and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within one-half mile of a school, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because law enforcement lacked probable cause to arrest him.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Forrester, 343 S.C. 637, 642, 541 S.E.2d 837, 840 (2001) (finding there is no need for a subsequent objection where the witness introducing the evidence which was the subject of the motion in limine was the first witness at trial, there was no evidence taken between the motion in limine and the witness’s testimony, and the trial court did not have an opportunity to change its ruling); State v. Wood, 362 S.C. 520, 526, 608 S.E.2d 435, 438-39 (Ct. App. 2004) (explaining a motion in limine to exclude evidence at beginning of trial does not preserve an issue for review because a motion in limine is not a final determination; therefore, the moving party must make a contemporaneous objection when the evidence is introduced). 

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, HUFF, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


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