Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-397 - State v. James

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.

Michael James, Appellant.


Appeal From Saluda County
Deadra L. Jefferson, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-397
Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed September 13, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender LaNelle DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Michael James appeals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, arguing the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial due to comments made by the State in opening arguments.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Hoffman, 312 S.C. 386, 393, 440 S.E.2d 869, 873 (1994) ("A contemporaneous objection is required to properly preserve an error for appellate review."); State v. Wilkins, 310 S.C. 81, 89, 425 S.E.2d 68, 73 (Ct. App. 1992) (explaining the failure to make a contemporaneous objection during the State's opening argument waives a defendant's "right to complain later on"); see also State v. Lynn, 277 S.C. 222, 226, 284 S.E.2d 786, 789 (1981) ("Failure to contemporaneously object . . . cannot be later bootstrapped by a motion for a mistrial.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and PIEPER, JJ., concur. 


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