State v. Morse

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.

Jami Renee Morse, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002734

Appeal From Berkeley County
R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-275
Heard June 5, 2017 – Filed July 5, 2017

REVERSED

Milton Demetrios Stratos, of Mount Pleasant, for
Appellant.

Marcus Keith Gore, of South Carolina Department of
Public Safety, of Blythewood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jami Renee Morse appeals the circuit court's order reversing the
magistrate's directed verdict in her trial for driving under the influence (DUI).
Morse argues the circuit court erred in (1) finding the State preserved issues for
appellate review, (2) denying her motion to dismiss, and (3) conducting a de novo
review in an appellate matter. We reverse.
1. We find the State failed to preserve issues for appellate review by the circuit
court by failing to file a post-trial motion to the magistrate after the State failed to
appear in magistrate's court. An issue may not be raised for the first time on
appeal, but must have been preserved for appellate review. State v. Nichols, 325
S.C. 111, 120, 481 S.E.2d 118, 123 (1997). "There are four basic requirements to
preserving issues at trial for appellate review. . . . [T]he issue must have been (1)
raised to and ruled upon by the [trial] court, (2) raised by the appellant, (3) raised
in a timely manner, and (4) raised to the [trial] court with sufficient specificity."
Jean H. Toal, Amelia W. Walker & Margaret E. Baker, Appellate Practice in South
Carolina 185 (3d ed. 2016). "Post-trial motions are not necessary to preserve
issues that have been ruled upon at trial; they are used to preserve those that have
been raised to the trial court but not yet ruled upon by it." Wilder Corp. v. Wilke,
330 S.C. 71, 77, 497 S.E.2d 731, 734 (1998). However, "[p]ost-trial motions are
also utilized to raise issues that could not have been raised at trial." Toal at 189
(explaining when a post-trial motion must be filed to preserve an issue for
appellate review). We find the State was required to file a post-trial motion with
the magistrate to preserve its issues for appellate review to the circuit court. See
State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 411, 401 S.E.2d 168, 169 (1991) (stating an
objection must be made at the earliest opportunity to preserve an issue for appellate
review); id. (finding the defendant should have raised an issue at his sentencing
hearing that he could not have raised at his trial in absentia).

2. We decline to reach Morse's remaining issues based on our disposition of the
first issue. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598,
613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (noting an appellate court need not address
appellant's remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive).

REVERSED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.