Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-294 - State v. Middleton

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.

Octavia Middleton, Appellant.


Appeal From Richland County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-294
Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 27, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General Melody J. Brown, and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Octavia Middleton appeals his convictions of assault with intent to kill, three counts of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, five counts of armed robbery, two counts of first-degree burglary, and murder, for which he received an aggregate fifty-year sentence.  Middleton argues the trial court erred in admitting photographs of scratches on his arms and in failing to direct a verdict in his favor.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to the admission of photographs:  State v. Beckham, 334 S.C. 302, 310-11, 513 S.E.2d 606, 610 (1999) (affirming the admission of photographs of defendant's scratched back and arms as relevant and probative evidence when defendant's accomplice testified defendant fled the murder scene by running through a wooded area).

2.  As to the directed verdict motion:  State v. Hicks, 330 S.C. 207, 217, 499 S.E.2d 209, 214 (1998) (holding preservation requires the objection to be contemporaneous); McGee v. Bruce Hosp. Sys., 321 S.C. 340, 347, 468 S.E.2d 633, 637 (1996) (finding an issue cannot be raised for the first time in a new trial motion). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.


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