State v. Blair

CourtListener 10149478ScctappMar 2, 2016

Full text

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, Appellant,

v.

Nicholas M. Blair, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001003

Appeal From Berkeley County
Deadra L. Jefferson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-105
Submitted November 1, 2015 – Filed March 2, 2016

AFFIRMED

Marcus Keith Gore and Catherine Fant, both of the South
Carolina Department of Public Safety, of Blythewood,
for Appellant.

Gregory A. DeLuca, of DeLuca & Maucher, L.L.P., of
Moncks Corner, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Rule 220(c), SCACR ("The appellate court may affirm any ruling,
order, decision or judgment upon any ground(s) appearing in the Record on
Appeal."); State v. Sheppard, 391 S.C. 415, 423, 706 S.E.2d 16, 20 (2011) ("[A]n
issue may not be raised for the first time on appeal."); State v. Adams, 354 S.C.
361, 380, 580 S.E.2d 785, 795 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Arguments not raised to or ruled
upon by the trial court are not preserved for appellate review."); State v. Dunbar,
356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party may not argue one
ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal."); State v. Cope, 405 S.C. 317,
339, 748 S.E.2d 194, 205 (2013) ("Prohibiting an appellant from raising an issue
for the first time on appeal ensures that the trial court is able 'to rule properly after
it has considered all relevant facts, law, and arguments.'" (quoting Herron v.
Century BMW, 395 S.C. 461, 465, 719 S.E.2d 640, 642 (2012))); State v. Gault,
375 S.C. 570, 573, 654 S.E.2d 98, 99-100 (Ct. App. 2007) (finding an appellant's
argument that had been raised on appeal to the circuit court unpreserved because
the appellant had not raised that argument at trial to the magistrate court).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, A.C.J., and WILLIAMS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.