STATE v. COOK, 2015-UP-270. (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Number: inscco20150603659
Visitors: 16
Filed: Jun. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 03, 2015
Summary: 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), SCARC. PER CURIAM . Roderquiz Rozelle Cook appeals his convictions for murder, attempted armed robbery, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery, arguing he was deprived of a fair trial because the State failed to promptly disclose four pieces of evidence in violation of the Brady v. Maryland 1 disclosure rule and Rule 5, SCRCrimP. We affirm pursua
Summary: 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), SCARC. PER CURIAM . Roderquiz Rozelle Cook appeals his convictions for murder, attempted armed robbery, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery, arguing he was deprived of a fair trial because the State failed to promptly disclose four pieces of evidence in violation of the Brady v. Maryland 1 disclosure rule and Rule 5, SCRCrimP. We affirm pursuan..
More
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), SCARC.
PER CURIAM.
Roderquiz Rozelle Cook appeals his convictions for murder, attempted armed robbery, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery, arguing he was deprived of a fair trial because the State failed to promptly disclose four pieces of evidence in violation of the Brady v. Maryland1 disclosure rule and Rule 5, SCRCrimP. 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) ("[F]or an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the [circuit court]. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the [circuit] court will not be considered on appeal." (citation omitted)); State v. Whipple, 324 S.C. 43, 51, 476 S.E.2d 683, 687 (1996) (finding a defendant "waived any right to complain" of inadequate time to review newly produced materials after the circuit court granted a delay and the defendant sought no further time, expressly conceded he was ready to proceed, and "proceed[ed] to trial without further objection" (citations omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C.J., and HUFF and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
FootNotes
1. 371 U.S. 812 (1962).
Source: Leagle
