State v. Samuel Lee Jackson

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 v. Respondent,

v.

Samuel Lee Jackson, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2020-000949

Appeal From Lexington County
Walton J. McLeod, IV, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-206
Submitted April 1, 2022 – Filed May 18, 2022

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Ambree Michele Muller, of Columbia;
and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of Lexington, all
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Samuel Lee Jackson appeals his convictions for first-degree
domestic violence, first-degree harassment, and tampering with or destroying an
electronic monitor and sentence of four years' imprisonment. On appeal, Jackson
argues the plea court erred by denying his sentence reconsideration motion, which
in effect denied him the opportunity to have the victim—his wife, Carol
Littleton—appear and testify directly to the plea court on his behalf. Because the
motion did not include a request that the plea court hold a hearing to allow
Littleton to testify on Jackson's behalf, we find this issue not preserved for
appellate review. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and
the following authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691,
693-94 (2003) (providing that if an issue was not raised and ruled upon below, it
will not be considered for the first time on appeal); id. at 142, 587 S.E.2d at 694
("[I]it must be clear that the argument has been presented [to the sentencing court]
on that ground.").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, C.J., and KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., concur.

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