State v. Blake
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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. Mark Lorenzo Blake Jr., Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2018-002091 Appeal From Charleston County William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-201 Submitted May 1, 2021 – Filed June 9, 2021 AFFIRMED Appellate Defender Taylor Davis Gilliam, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General William Frederick Schumacher, IV, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, all for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Mark Lorenzo Blake, Jr. appeals his conviction for attempted murder and sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Blake argues the circuit court erred by admitting evidence that he could not legally possess a firearm. Blake failed to make a contemporaneous objection to all references concerning his illegal possession of a firearm, and Blake himself induced testimony about his not being permitted to legally possess a firearm several times throughout trial. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: See State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court]."); State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502, 507, 435 S.E.2d 859, 862 (1993) ("A ruling in limine is not a final ruling on the admissibility of evidence."), overruled on other grounds by State v. Stukes, 416 S.C. 493, 787 S.E.2d 480 (2016); State v. Carlson, 363 S.C. 586, 595, 611 S.E.2d 283, 287 (Ct. App. 2005) ("A contemporaneous objection is required to preserve issues for direct appellate review."); Schumpert, 312 S.C. at 507, 435 S.E.2d at 862 ("Unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling made, the issue is not preserved for review."); Carlson, 363 S.C. at 595, 611 S.E.2d at 287 ("A party cannot complain of an error which his own conduct has induced."). AFFIRMED.1 LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and HEWITT, JJ., concur. 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
