Berry v. Stokes Import

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

Hoang Berry, Appellant,

v.

Stokes Import Collision Center, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2012-207187

Appeal From Charleston County
Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-007
Submitted December 3, 2012 – Filed January 9, 2013

AFFIRMED

Jason G. Soper, of Soper Law Firm, LLC, of Charleston,
for Appellant.

Harry Clayton Walker, Jr. and Robert Lawrence Reibold,
of Walker & Reibold, LLC, of Columbia, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1. As to Berry's argument concerning the ineffectiveness of the court provided
interpreter during trial: Kleckley v. Nw. Nat'l Cas. Co., 338 S.C. 131, 138, 526
S.E.2d 218, 221 (2000) (noting an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by both
the trial court and an intermediate appellate court to be properly preserved for
review).

2. As to Berry's argument concerning the circuit court's failure to provide her an
interpreter during her appeal: Herron v. Century BMW, 395 S.C. 461, 465, 719
S.E.2d 640, 642 (2011) (noting an issue that is raised for the first time on appeal is
not preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and WILLIAMS and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.