State v. Williams, 23346
| Citation | 303 S.C. 410,401 S.E.2d 168 |
| Decision Date | 07 January 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 23346,23346 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Anthony WILLIAMS, Appellant. . Heard |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Asst. Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Miller W. Shealy, Jr. and Staff Atty. E. Jean Howard, Columbia, and Sol. Wade S. Kolb, Jr., Sumter, for respondent.
Appellant was tried in his absence without counsel and convicted of trafficking in cocaine, criminal conspiracy, and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-five years and fined $200,000. We affirm.
Appellant claims he is entitled to a new trial because the record fails to establish he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be represented by counsel at trial.
The threshold issue is whether appellant waived this issue on appeal by failing to object on this ground at his sentencing hearing. Generally, this Court will not consider issues not raised to or ruled upon by the trial judge. State v. Woodruff, 300 S.C. 265, 387 S.E.2d 453 (1989); State v. Vanderbilt, 287 S.C. 597, 340 S.E.2d 543 (1986). A defendant must object at his first opportunity to preserve an issue for appellate review. Cf. State v. Williams, 292 S.C. 231, 355 S.E.2d 861 (1987) ().
Here, appellant was represented by counsel at sentencing. When a defendant is tried in absentia, judgment is not final until the sealed sentence is opened and read. State v. Robinson, 287 S.C. 173, 337 S.E.2d 204 (1985). counsel could have interposed a timely objection at sentencing in order to have this issue ruled upon by the circuit court in the first instance. Since no objection was made, there is no issue preserved for review by this Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Warren
...476 S.E.2d 681 (1996) (a contemporaneous objection is required at trial to preserve an issue for appellate review); State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 401 S.E.2d 168 (1991) (an issue must be raised to and ruled on by the trial judge to preserve for appellate review); State v. Black, 319 S.C. ......
-
State v. Douglas, 4075.
...at the first opportunity to preserve an issue for review. State v. Aldret, 333 S.C. 307, 509 S.E.2d 811 (1999); State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 401 S.E.2d 168 (1991); State v. Lopez, 352 S.C. 373, 574 S.E.2d 210 (Ct.App. 2002). Yet, this rule does not require defense counsel to harass the ......
-
Frazer v. South Carolina
...subject matter jurisdiction," the defendant could not raise it for the first time on appeal (emphasis added)); State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 401 S.E.2d 168, 169 (1991) (noting that it is the failure to "interpose[ ] a timely objection at sentencing in order to have [an] issue ruled upon ......
-
State v. Charping
...and conspiracy are unaffected by trial errors raised for the first time on appeal and, therefore, are affirmed. State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 401 S.E.2d 168 (1991). AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CHANDLER, FINNEY, JJ., concur. GOOLSBY, Acting Associate Justice and TOAL, J., conc......