State v. Chandler

• Decision Date: 09 October 2019
• Docket Number: Appellate Case No. 2016-001554,Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-333
• Parties: The State, Respondent, v. Edward Terrell Chandler, Appellant.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent, v. Edward Terrell Chandler, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001554

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-333

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Submitted September 1, 2019

October 9, 2019

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.

Appeal From Edgefield County

Eugene C. Griffith, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of Lexington, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Edward Terrell Chandler appeals his convictions and aggregate sixty-year sentence for first-degree burglary, strong armed robbery, kidnapping, and first-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing the trial court erred by requiring

Page 2

him to demonstrate a heightened level of competency when it denied his pretrial motion to relieve counsel and proceed pro se, which improperly forced him to choose between his right to self-representation and his right to a speedy trial. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court]. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal."); State v. King, 416 S.C. 92, 112, 784 S.E.2d 252, 262 (Ct. App. 2016) ("[W]here an objection is expressly withdrawn, it cannot be raised on appeal."), rev'd on other grounds, 424 S.C. 188, 818 S.E.2d 204 (2018).

AFFIRMED.¹

SHORT, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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