State v. McKenzie

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.

Leroy Alvin
McKenzie, Appellant.

Appeal From Sumter County

Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-528

Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed
December 2, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Leroy A. McKenzie, pro se.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J.
Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Alphonso Simon, Jr., all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Ernest A. Finney, III, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Leroy
Alvin McKenzie appeals the circuit court's order denying his post-trial
motions, arguing the circuit court erred in not allowing him to amend a motion
for a new trial after he exhausted his direct appeal.[1] 
We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v.
Williams, 386 S.C. 503, 509, 690 S.E.2d 62, 65 (2010) ("In criminal
cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only." (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)); Rule 29(a), SCRCrimP ("Except for
motions for new trials based on after-discovered evidence, post trial motions
shall be made within ten (10) days after the imposition of the
sentence."); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-27-20 (2003) (providing that post-conviction
relief is the exclusive remedy to challenge a conviction once a direct appeal
is exhausted).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and
KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

[1] Because they were never ruled on by the circuit
court, all other issues raised by McKenzie are unpreserved for our review.  State
v. Moore, 357 S.C 458, 464-65, 593 S.E.2d 608, 612 (2004) (holding that an
issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court in order to be preserved
for appellate review).

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