2005-UP-299 - State v. Carter
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
Appeal From Spartanburg County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-299
Submitted April 1, 2005 – Filed April 27, 2005
David M. Collins, Jr., of Spartanburg, 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 Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Kobe Carter was convicted of trafficking in cocaine in the amount of 100 grams or more and possession of crack cocaine. The trial judge sentenced Carter to twenty-five years on the trafficking charge and five years on the possession charge. Carter appeals, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting narcotics and money obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure. We affirm1 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. Smith, 337 S.C. 27, 32, 522 S.E.2d 598, 600 (1999) (“A pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence is preliminary and is subject to change based on developments at trial. A ruling in limine is not final; 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. Simpson, 325 S.C. 37, 42, 479 S.E.2d 57, 60 (1996) (“A ruling in limine is not a final ruling on the admissibility of evidence. Unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling made, the issue is not preserved for review.”) (citation omitted).
GOOLSBY, HUFF, and STILWELL, JJ., concur.
1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.