Lindsey failed to object to the trial court’s handwriting analysis during the Jackson v. Denno hearing. Because this argument was never presented to the trial court, it is not preserved for our review. See State v. Russell, 345 S.C. 128, 134, 546 S.E.2d 202, 205 (Ct.App.2001) (finding evidentiary argument was not preserved for review because the issue was never raised to or ruled upon by the trial court). III. Inadmissible Hearsay Lindsey also argues the trial court’s ruling to admit Lindsey’s written statement explicitly relied on inadmissible hearsay. Although Lindsey identified the inadmissible hearsay in his statement of issues on appeal, he failed to address it in his brief, precluding consideration on appeal. See Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 21, 640 S.E.2d 486, 497 (Ct.App.2006) (<HOLDING>); see also Howard, 384 S.C. at 218, 682 S.E.2d
holding that an issue is abandoned when not raised in an appellate brief holding that an issue mentioned in a brief but not addressed is waived holding that issues not raised in an initial brief on appeal are deemed abandoned holding an issue listed in statement of issues on appeal but not addressed in brief is abandoned holding that issues not raised in the initial brief on appeal are deemed abandoned