Opinion · Supreme Court of South Carolina
State v. Williams
303 S.C. 410
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of South Carolina
- Jurisdiction
- South Carolina
- Date
- 1991-02-11
- Topic
- bankruptcy
How later courts describe this case
- finding that issues not raised to and ruled on by trial judge are not preserved for review
- holding an issue not raised and ruled upon by the trial court is not preserved for appeal
- noting that it is the failure to “interpose[] a timely objection at sentencing in order to have [an] issue ruled upon by the circuit court in the first instance” that forecloses further review (emphasis added)
- holding defendant, who was tried and convicted in his absence without counsel, failed to preserve issue of whether he waived his right to trial counsel where neither he nor his sentencing attorney raised this issue to the circuit court
- stating an issue may not be raised for the first time in a post-trial motion
- finding the defendant should have raised an issue at his sentencing hearing that he could not have raised at his trial in absentia
- stating an objection must be made at the earliest opportunity to preserve an issue for appellate review
- finding an appellate court will not consider issues that are not raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. Williams. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 70 opinions
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) (right to be present).
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). Coun *412 sel 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.
The judgment of the circuit court is
Affirmed.
Harwell, Chandler, Finney and Toal, JJ., concur.