State v. Antly J. Scott

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.

Antly Jermaine Scott, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2022-000266

Appeal From Orangeburg County
Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-152
Submitted March 1, 2025 – Filed April 30, 2025

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Sarah Elizabeth Shipe, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and
Assistant Attorney General Julianna E. Battenfield, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of
Orangeburg, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Antly Jermaine Scott appeals his convictions of attempted
murder, first-degree burglary, and four counts of murder, and his concurrent
sentences of thirty years' imprisonment for attempted murder, life imprisonment
for first-degree burglary, and life imprisonment for each murder conviction. On
appeal, Scott argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever his trial
from the trial of his two co-defendants—Robert Bailey and Luther Smith. We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold Scott's argument is not preserved for appellate review because the trial
court never made a final on-the-record ruling on Scott's motion to sever. 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 [court]."). Further, we hold Scott's argument—an additional reason for
severance was that a witness provided incriminating testimony against Bailey that
prejudiced Scott through guilt by association—is also not preserved because Scott
did not raise this to the trial court. See State v. Nichols, 325 S.C. 111, 120, 481
S.E.2d 118, 123 (1997) ("An issue may not be raised for the first time on appeal,
but must have been raised to the trial [court] to be preserved for appellate
review."); State v. Harris, 351 S.C. 643, 652, 572 S.E.2d 267, 272 (2002) (holding
a motion to sever issue was not preserved because the defendant did not base his
initial motion upon the issue raised on appeal).

AFFIRMED. 1

KONDUROS, MCDONALD, and VINSON, JJ., concur.

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