granting relief to Wilson on his claim that the trial court improperly considered the QCRB report in its sen tencing decision. As the state PCR court held, Wilson invited the trial court to take this action when he assured the court that he had no problem with its consideration of the report in camera. J.A. 594-95. Under South Carolina law, “the failure to object to proceedings below waives the presentation of those issues on appeal,” or “in post-conviction absent an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel.” See, e.g., Cummings v. State, 274 S.C. 26, 260 S.E.2d 187, 188 (1979); Miller v. State, 269 S.C. 113, 236 S.E.2d 422 (1977) (same). The preclusive effect of an invitation of error is, if possible, more severe. See State v. Robinson, 149 S.C. 439, 147 S.E. 441, 443 (1929) (<HOLDING>). This procedural rule is long-standing and has
holding that the foundational prerequisites are unnecessary where the test result is admitted in evidence without objection when evidence of one of the issues in the case is admitted without objection the party against whom it is offered waives any objection to the evidence and it may be properly considered even if the evidence would have been excluded upon a proper objection holding that an objection was adequate when the judge cut short the objection and the defendant was not afforded the opportunity to explain his objection fully holding that counsel is   in no position to complain as to matters  not only without objection on his part but when solicited by him holding that overruling an objection to evidence will not result in reversal when other such evidence is received without objection holding that objection by defense counsel that he did not see the relevance of the evidence was not a proper relevancy objection