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.
Samuel W. Harmon, Appellant.
Appeal From Lexington County
Ralph F. Cothran, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-080
Submitted February 1, 2011 � Filed
February 24, 2011���
AFFIRMED
Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General Alphonso Simon, Jr., all of Columbia, and Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM:� Samuel H. Harmon was convicted of murder, assault and battery with intent to kill, assault with intent to kill, and possession of a firearm during the commission of violent crime.� Harmon appeals, alleging the trial court erred in (1) forcing Harmon to concede to the admission of a co-defendant's written statement in return for the admission of public records evidencing the co-defendant's conviction and sentence for a lesser offense, and (2) admitting the written statement because the statement constituted impermissible hearsay.� We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
As to issue (1): �State v. Dicapua, 383 S.C. 394, 399, 680 S.E.2d 292, 294 (2009) (finding in the absence of force, a party's concession to the admission of evidence waives any direct challenge to the admissibility of that evidence); State v. Pichardo, 367 S.C. 84, 94, 623 S.E.2d 840, 846 (Ct. App. 2005) (stating parties are bound by their trial stipulations).
As to issue (2): Dicapua, 383 S.C. at 399, 680 S.E.2d at 294 (indicating concession to the admission of evidence waives any direct challenge to the admissibility of that evidence); State v. Rice, 348 S.C. 417, 420, 559 S.E.2d 360, 362 (Ct. App. 2001) (noting issues not raised to the trial court are not preserved for appellate review).�
AFFIRMED.[1]
FEW, C.J., THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.
[1]�� We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.