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.
Randy Alan Yonson, Appellant.
Appeal From Sumter County
Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-408
Submitted September 1, 2010 � Filed
September 16, 2010
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART
Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliot, and Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor C. Kelly Jackson, of Sumter, for Respondent.�
PER CURIAM: Randy A. Yonson appeals his convictions for unlawful possession of a pistol, possession of a pistol by a person under the age of twenty-one, possession of a pistol by a person convicted of a crime of violence, two counts of assault and battery with intent to kill, possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, two counts of assaulting a law enforcement officer while resisting arrest, and resisting arrest with a deadly weapon.� Yonson argues (1) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting his statement to law enforcement while Yonson was in the hospital recovering from traumatic gunshot wounds, and (2) his possession of a pistol by a person under the age of twenty-one conviction should be reversed in light of State v. Bolin, 378 S.C. 96, 662 S.E.2d 38 (2008).� We affirm in part and reverse in part.� ���
1. Regarding whether the trial court erred in admitting Yonson's statement to law enforcement, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority:� State v. Forrester, 343 S.C. 637, 642, 541 S.E.2d 837, 840 (2001) ("[M]aking a motion in limine to exclude evidence at the beginning of trial does not preserve an issue for review because a motion in limine is not a final determination. �The moving party, therefore, must make a contemporaneous objection when the evidence is introduced.").�
2. Regarding Yonson's conviction for possession of a pistol by a person under the age of twenty-one, we reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Bolin, 378 S.C. 96, 100, 662 S.E.2d 38, 40 (2008) (holding section 16-23-30(c) of the South Carolina Code (2003) violates the plain language of article XVII, section 14 of the South Carolina Constitution).
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.[1]
SHORT, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.