State v. Settles

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT

BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT
IN ANY PROCEEDING

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2),
SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Henry Leon
Settles,        Appellant.

Appeal From McCormick County

William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-256

Submitted February 23, 2004 – Filed
April 15, 2004   

AFFIRMED

C. Rauch Wise, of Greenwood, for Appellant,

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson,
Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald
V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to South
Carolina Rules of Appellate Practice, Rule 220, and the following authorities: 
As to Issue I:  State v. Prioleau, 345 S.C. 404, 411, 548 S.E.2d
213, 216 (2001) (stating that a party may not argue one ground at trial and
an alternate ground on appeal.);  see State v. Smalls, 336 S.C.
301, 519 S.E.2d 793 (1999) (“The true test of an indictment’s validity is not
whether it could be made more definite and certain, but whether it contains
the necessary elements of the offense intended to be charged and sufficiently
apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet.”); see also
State v. Gunn, 313 S.C. 124, 130, 437 S.E.2d 75, 78 (1993) (stating that
the sufficiency of the indictment must be determined by viewing it “with a practical
eye in view of the surrounding circumstances”). 

As to Issue II:  Wilder Corp.
v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 497 S.E.2d 731 (1998) (finding that in order to preserve
an issue for appeal, specific grounds in support of the objection must be clearly
stated); see State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 377 S.E.2d 581 (1989)
(noting that merely stating the “standard motions” are being made fails to preserve
the issue for appeal); see also State v. Harry, 321 S.C.
273, 468 S.E.2d 76 (Ct. App. 1996) (stating that for an appellate court to consider
issues raised in a directed verdict motion made, the motion must be renewed
at the close of all evidence); see also Harkins v. Greenville
County, 340 S.C. 606, 533 S.E.2d 886 (2000) (stating that Appellant has
the burden of presenting a sufficient record upon which this Court can render
a decision). 

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ.,
concur.