State v. Morris

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.

Larold Lee Morris, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000682

Appeal From Pickens County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-420
Heard November 6, 2014 – Filed November 26, 2014

AFFIRMED

Chris Paton, of Chris Paton, LLC, of Charleston, and
Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, both
of Columbia; and Solicitor William Walter Wilkins, III,
of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Larold Lee Morris appeals his convictions for burglary in the first
degree, armed robbery, possession of a handgun with an obliterated serial number,
and conspiracy. He argues the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress
evidence found during the execution of a search warrant, which Morris alleges was
based on a conclusory affidavit.

Morris moved pretrial to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the search
warrant, and the circuit court denied that motion. At trial, Morris not only failed to
renew his objection when photographs of that evidence were offered, he twice
affirmatively stated that he had "no objection" to the introduction of the
photographs. These statements constituted waivers of any right Morris had to
challenge the admissibility of the evidence seized during the execution of the
search warrant. Therefore, the issue is not preserved for appellate review. See
State v. Dicapua, 373 S.C. 452, 455-56, 646 S.E.2d 150, 152 (Ct. App. 2007)
(holding the defendant's statement that he had no objection to a videotape coming
into evidence "amounted to a waiver of any issue" the defendant had with the
videotape and reasoning the defendant's "express waiver of objection to the
admission of the evidence . . . was tantamount to a withdrawal of his previous
motion to suppress" (citation omitted)); Burke v. AnMed Health, 393 S.C. 48, 55,
710 S.E.2d 84, 88 (Ct. App. 2011) ("When a party states to the trial court that it has
no objection to the introduction of evidence, even though the party previously
made a motion to exclude the evidence, the issue raised in the previous motion is
not preserved for appellate review."). Accordingly, Morris's convictions are
affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., LOCKEMY, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur.