State v. Chase Milam

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, Respondent,

v.

Chase Michael Milam, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2021-001490

Appeal From Richland County
Jocelyn Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2024-UP-002
Submitted November 13, 2023 – Filed January 3, 2024

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior
Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, Senior
Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, and
Solicitor Byron E. Gipson, all of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Chase Michael Milam appeals his conviction for second-degree
burglary and sentence of seven years' imprisonment. On appeal, Milam argues the
trial court erred by admitting Milam's prior convictions for petit larceny and
shoplifting as crimes of dishonesty and failing to conduct the on-the-record
balancing test required by State v. Colf, 337 S.C. 622, 525 S.E.2d 246 (2000),
which would have shown that the unfair prejudice of admitting the prior
convictions outweighed any probative value. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR.

We find this issue is not preserved for appellate review. See State v. Dunbar, 356
S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003) ("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. at 142, 587 S.E.2d at 694 ("A party may not argue one ground at trial
and an alternate ground on appeal."). The trial court admitted Milam's convictions
for shoplifting and petit larceny for the purposes of attacking Milam's credibility,
finding they were crimes involving dishonesty and the offenses' prejudicial effect
did not outweigh their probative value. Although Milam challenged the
admissibility of his prior convictions based on Rule 609(a)(1), SCRE, he did not
argue to the trial court that his convictions were not crimes of dishonesty under
Rule 609(a)(2), SCRE; thus, Milam failed to preserve this issue.

AFFIRMED. 1

THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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