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.

Johnathan E. Martin, Appellant.

Appeal From Sumter County
�D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-545
Submitted December 1, 2010 � Filed December 15, 2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle C. DuRant, III, of Columbia, 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 Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; Solicitor C. Kelly Jackson, of Sumter; for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:� Johnathan E. Martin appeals his conviction for discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle.� Martin argues the trial court erred by (1) admitting the pistol into evidence when the State failed to establish relevance, and (2) allowing the pistol into evidence when the pistol spuriously raised an inference of Martin's guilt.� We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred by admitting the pistol and holding it was relevant:� Rule 401, SCRE ("Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without evidence.");� State v. Quillien, 263 S.C. 87, 91, 207 S.E.2d 814, 816 (1974) ("It is a well established rule of law that the trial judge has broad discretion concerning the admission of evidence.� That discretion will not be overturned on appeal unless clearly abused."); State v. Robinson, 360 S.C. 187, 192, 600 S.E.2d 100, 102 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Concerning the admission of evidence, the trial judge's determination will be sustained absent error and resulting prejudice.").���

2. As to whether the trial court erred by admitting the pistol because it spuriously raised an inference of Martin's guilt:� State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003) ("[F]or an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and SHORT and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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