Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-138 - State v. Burton

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.

Steven Burton, Appellant.


Appeal From Aiken County
Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-138
Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed February 29, 2012   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Tristan M. Shaffer, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant  Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Steven Burton appeals his convictions for one count of receiving stolen goods and eight counts of violating the Motor Vehicle Chop Shop Act, arguing investigators used evidence obtained during an illegal search as the basis for probable cause in support of a search warrant.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority:  State v. Forrester, 343 S.C. 637, 642, 541 S.E.2d 837, 840 (2001) ("In most cases, making a motion in limine to exclude evidence at the beginning of trial does not preserve an issue for review because a motion in limine is not a final determination.  The moving party, therefore, must make a contemporaneous objection when the evidence is introduced."  (internal alteration, italics, and quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


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