From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Williams

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Feb 11, 1991
303 S.C. 410 (S.C. 1991)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that "[w]hen a defendant is tried in absentia, judgment is not final until the sealed sentence is opened and read."

Summary of this case from Miller v. Cartledge
See 11 Summaries

Opinion

23346

Heard January 7, 1991.

Decided February 11, 1991.

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.

Heard Jan. 7, 1991.

Decided Feb. 11, 1991.

GREGORY, Chief Justice:

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). 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.

The judgment of the circuit court is

Affirmed.

HARWELL, CHANDLER, FINNEY and TOAL, JJ., concur.

Summaries of

State v. Williams

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Feb 11, 1991
303 S.C. 410 (S.C. 1991)

holding that "[w]hen a defendant is tried in absentia, judgment is not final until the sealed sentence is opened and read."

Summary of this case from Miller v. Cartledge

holding an issue not raised and ruled upon by the trial court is not preserved for appeal

Summary of this case from State v. Jones

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

Summary of this case from State v. Pride

finding that issues not raised to and ruled on by trial judge are not preserved for review

Summary of this case from State v. Haigler

finding an issue unpreserved because the appellant failed to object at a sentencing hearing

Summary of this case from State v. Ravenell

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

Summary of this case from Frazer v. South Carolina

stating that generally issues not raised to and ruled on by the trial court are not preserved for appellate review

Summary of this case from Lathan v. Pate

stating that generally issues not raised to and ruled on by the trial court are not preserved for appellate review

Summary of this case from Zeigler v. Bush

In State v. Williams, ___ S.C. ___, 401 S.E.2d 168 (1991), we held that when an accused is tried in his absence, he must object to the failure to obtain a valid waiver of the right to counsel at the first opportunity.

Summary of this case from State v. White

stating an objection must be made at the earliest opportunity to preserve an issue for appellate review

Summary of this case from State v. Morse

noting in order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a defendant must object on that ground at his first opportunity

Summary of this case from State v. Wilkins
Case details for

State v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:The STATE, Respondent v. Anthony WILLIAMS, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Feb 11, 1991

Citations

303 S.C. 410 (S.C. 1991)
401 S.E.2d 168

Citing Cases

State v. Mitchell

Initially, this issue is procedurally barred because, while he indicated he might need a recess, counsel…

Anderson v. S.C. Dep't of Prob.

; State v. Franks, 432 S.C. 58, 79, 849 S.E.2d 580, 591 (Ct. App. 2020) ("Generally, this [c]ourt will not…

56 Citing Cases