State v. Moffat

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals The State, Respondent, Respondent, v. Keremme Marquese Moffat, Appellant. Appeal From York County Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-140 Submitted March 3, 2009 – Filed March 11, 2009 AFFIRMED Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; Solicitor Kevin S. Brackett, of York, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Keremme Marquese Moffat appeals his conviction for purchasing marijuana, arguing the trial court erred: (1) in admitting evidence obtained in a search of the alleged seller's residence, and (2) in denying his motion for summary judgment. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Smith, 337 S.C. 27, 34, 522 S.E.2d 598, 601 (1999) (stating where a defendant did not object at trial on the same grounds as raised on appeal, the issue is not preserved for review); State v. Osborne, 335 S.C. 172, 180, 516 S.E.2d 201, 205 (1999) ("[T]he corroboration rule is satisfied if the State provides sufficient independent evidence which serves to corroborate the defendant's extra-judicial statements and, together with such statements, permits a reasonable belief that the crime occurred."). AFFIRMED. HUFF, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.