State v. Herring

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.

Kendell Herring, Appellant.

Appeal From Horry County

Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-053

Submitted January 2, 2009 – Filed January
15, 2009

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; and Solicitor J.
Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Kendell Herring appeals his conviction
and sentence for assault and battery with intent to kill, arguing the trial
judge erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because there was a
variance between the State’s evidence and the indictment.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 208(b)(1)(B), SCACR (“Ordinarily, no point will
be considered which does not set forth in the statement of issues on appeal.”);
S.C. Code Ann. § 17-19-100 (2003) (stating that after an amendment to an
indictment, “the trial shall proceed in all respects and with the same
consequences as if the indictment had originally been returned as so amended”); Ex parte Morris, 367 S.C. 56, 65, 624 S.E.2d 649, 653-54 (2006) (stating
an unappealed ruling is the law of the case). 

AFFIRMED.

HEARN,
C.J., SHORT and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. 

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