Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-102 - The State v. Howard Thompson III

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Howard Thompson III, Appellant.


Appeal from Anderson County
Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-102
Submitted January 4, 2010 – Filed February 4, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General Josh W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Christina T. Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Howard Thompson III appeals his conviction for criminal sexual conduct with a minor, first degree, following a trial by jury.  Thompson argues that the circuit court erred by not obtaining an intelligent waiver of his right to counsel and by overruling his objection.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1.  As to Thompson's decision to proceed pro se:  State v. Howard, 384 S.C. 212, 219, 682 S.E.2d 42, 46 (Ct. App. 2009) (an argument must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge in order to be preserved for appellate review). 

2.  As to the testimony of victim's mother:  State v. Patterson, 324 S.C. 5, 482 S.E.2d 760 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1997) (appellant must state the grounds of an objection to the trial judge in order to preserve it for appellate review); State v. Rice, 375 S.C. 302, 323, 652 S.E.2d 409, 419 (Ct. App. 2007) ("A general objection which does not specify the particular ground on which the objection is based is insufficient to preserve a question for review.").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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