State v. Stephenson

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Barrett Stephenson,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Aiken County

James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-038

Submitted November 20, 2002 – Filed
January 15, 2003

AFFIRMED

Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda H. Haile, of Columbia,
for appellant.

Deputy Director for Legal Services Teresa A. Knox, Legal Counsel
Tommy Evans, Jr., and Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, all of Columbia, for
respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed
pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 220(c),
SCACR (stating an appellate court may affirm a trial court’s decision based
on any reason appearing in the record on appeal); State v. Saltz, 346
S.C. 114, 126, 551 S.E.2d 240, 247 (2001) (holding an appellate court may affirm
a trial court’s decision based on any reason appearing in the record on appeal);
State v. Sampson, 317 S.C. 423, 427, 454 S.E.2d 721, 723 (1995) (holding
an unappealed ruling is the law of the case and, standing alone, may be a sufficient
basis to affirm a defendant’s conviction); see also State v. Hughes,
336 S.C. 585, 591, 521 S.E.2d 500, 503 (1999) (holding contemporaneous objection
and final ruling by trial judge are required to preserve error for appellate
review); Townsend v. City of Dillon, 326 S.C. 244, 247, 586 S.E.2d 95,
97 (1997) (holding that issue not ruled on by the trial judge is not preserved
for appellate review); Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d
122, 124 (1991) (holding that issue not explicitly ruled on by the trial judge
and not raised in a Rule 59(e) motion was not preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED. [1]

CONNOR, STILWELL, and HOWARD, JJ., concur.

[1] Because oral argument would not aid the Court in
resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant
to Rule 215, SCACR.