Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-140 - State v. Moffat

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, Respondent,

v.

Keremme Marquese Moffat, Appellant.


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


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-140
Submitted March 3, 2009 – Filed March 11, 2009  


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, 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 Deborah R.J. Shupe, all

of Columbia; Solicitor Kevin S. Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Keremme Marquese Moffat appeals his conviction for purchasing marijuana, arguing the trial court erred: (1) in admitting evidence obtained in a search of the alleged seller's residence, and (2) in denying his motion for summary judgment.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Smith, 337 S.C. 27, 34, 522 S.E.2d 598, 601 (1999) (stating where a defendant did not object at trial on the same grounds as raised on appeal, the issue is not preserved for review); State v. Osborne, 335 S.C. 172, 180, 516 S.E.2d 201, 205 (1999) ("[T]he corroboration rule is satisfied if the State provides sufficient independent evidence which serves to corroborate the defendant's extra-judicial statements and, together with such statements, permits a reasonable belief that the crime occurred.").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. 


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