State v. Jenkins

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 

State of South
Carolina, Respondent,

v.

Regina Lashawn
Jenkins, Defendant,

Lisa M. Riddle
representing

A-1 Bonding
& Enterprises, Inc., and American Surety Company, Appellants.

Appeal From Aiken County

Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-542 

Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed
December 5, 2011

AFFIRMED

 

Bejamin A. Stitely, of Lexington, for
Appellants.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General David Spencer, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: A-1 Bonding & Enterprises, Inc. and
American Surety Company, represented by Lisa M. Riddle, appeal the circuit
court's order denying remittance of any portion of their bond upon a finding Regina
Lashawn Jenkins failed to appear in court when summoned.  A-1 Bonding and
American Surety argue the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to
consider the factors set forth in Ex parte Polk, 354 S.C. 8, 579 S.E.2d
329 (Ct. App. 2003).  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v.
Lopez, 352 S.C. 373, 378, 574 S.E.2d 210, 213 (Ct. App. 2002) (finding an
issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court in order to be
considered on appeal); State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5, 377 S.E.2d 581,
584 (1989) (holding a party cannot argue one ground at trial and then an
alternative ground on appeal); Duncan v. CRS Sirrine Eng'rs, Inc., 337
S.C. 537, 543-44, 524 S.E.2d 115, 119 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding a party's
arguments were not preserved for appeal because the party did not raise the
issue to the circuit court, the circuit court did not rule on the issue, and
the party failed to file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion); Noisette v. Ismail,
304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (finding an issue not preserved when
the circuit court did not explicitly rule on a question and the appellant
failed to make a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion to alter or amend the judgment on
that ground).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J.,
THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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