State v. Walshaw

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.

Charles Brett Walshaw, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-190811

Appeal From York County John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-168 Submitted March 1, 2013 – Filed April 24, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Dayne C. Phillips, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin S. Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Sheppard, 391 S.C. 415, 420-21, 706 S.E.2d 16, 19 (2011) ("Our law is clear that a party must make a contemporaneous objection that is ruled upon by the trial judge to preserve an issue for appellate review."); id. at 421, 706 S.E.2d at 19 (noting constitutional claims are not preserved for review without a contemporaneous objection at trial (citing State v. Owens, 378 S.C. 636, 638, 664 S.E.2d 80, 81 (2008))); State v. Vang, 353 S.C. 78, 85, 577 S.E.2d 225, 228 (Ct. App. 2003) (finding the defendant failed to preserve the issue of whether the jury prematurely deliberated because the defendant neither asked the trial court to individually question the jurors, nor failed to object to the trial court's ruling, after receiving a note from the jury and questioning the jury foreman, that further inquiry was unnecessary).

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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