State v. Talford

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. Sederick Antoine Talford, Appellant. Appeal From York County Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-387 Submitted June 1, 2009 – Filed July 8, 2009 AFFIRMED Robert A. Muckenfuss, of Charlotte, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Sederick Antoine Talford was tried in absentia and convicted of simple possession of cocaine. He appeals his conviction, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the cocaine because it was seized as the result of an unlawful detention. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Forrester, 343 S.C. 637, 642, 541 S.E.2d 837, 840 (2001) ("In most cases, '[m]aking 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.'") (citation omitted); State v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 193 n.3, 498 S.E.2d 642, 644 n.3 (1998) ("We have consistently held a ruling in limine is not final, and unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling procured, the issue is not preserved for review.") (citation omitted); State v. King, 349 S.C. 142, 149, 561 S.E.2d 640, 643 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding the issue of whether the trial court erred in admitting crack cocaine into evidence was not preserved for review when defense counsel moved in limine to suppress the drugs but failed to renew the motion when the drugs were actually admitted into evidence). AFFIRMED.[1] HEARN, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.