State v. Pringle

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

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.

Christopher M.
Pringle, Appellant.

Appeal From Orangeburg County

Edward B. Cottingham, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-619

Submitted December 1, 2004 – Filed December
9, 2004

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
and Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor
Robert D. Robbins, of Summerville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Christopher M. Pringle
was convicted of driving under suspension (DUS), second offense, failure to
stop for a blue light, and possession of a firearm by a person convicted of
a crime of violence.  He received consecutive sentences of three years for failure
to stop for a blue light and two years for possession of a firearm by a person
convicted of a crime of violence, and a concurrent sixty day sentence for DUS. 
On appeal, Pringle argues the trial court erred “by denying [Pringle’s] motion
for a directed verdict when he was charged with being a violent felon in possession
of a weapon under S.C. Code Section 16-23-30, and his prior offense, third-degree
burglary, is not classified as a crime of violence.”  We affirm
[1] pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 14-8-250 (Supp. 2003), Rule 220(b), SCACR,
and the following authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 587 S.E.2d
691 (2003) (holding that in order for an issue to be preserved for appellate
review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge); Id.
(finding that issues not raised and ruled upon in trial court will not be considered
on appeal); State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5, 377 S.E.2d 581, 584 (1989)
(“A party cannot argue one ground for a directed verdict in trial and then an
alternative ground on appeal.”); State v. Jordan, 255 S.C. 86, 177 S.E.2d
464 (1970) (determining that in reviewing denial of directed verdict motion,
issues not raised to trial court in support of directed verdict motion are not
preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, STILWELL, and SHORT,
JJ., concur.

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