Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-407 - State v. Ford

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.

Wilford Gino Ford, Appellant.


Appeal From Sumter County
Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-407
Submitted September 1, 2010 – Filed September 16, 2010


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Cecil Kelly Jackson, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Wilford Gino Ford appeals his conviction and sentence for second-degree burglary, arguing the trial court erred in excluding a portion of his evidence and in denying his motion for a directed verdict.  After thoroughly reviewing the record and briefs and finding neither of the issues on appeal is preserved, we affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1. As to whether the trial court erred in excluding a portion of Ford's evidence:  Ligon v. Norris, 371 S.C. 625, 634, 640 S.E.2d 467, 472 (Ct. App. 2006) ("An objection withdrawn at trial constitutes an express waiver of the issue and does not preserve the issue for appellate review."). 

2. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Ford's motion for a directed verdict:  State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5-6, 377 S.E.2d 581, 584 (1989) (holding a party who argues one ground for a directed verdict at trial and an alternative ground on appeal waives his right to argue the issue on appeal). 

AFFIRMED. 

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


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