State v. Jakavis Green

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.

Jakavis Green, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2023-000846

Appeal From Beaufort County
Brooks P. Goldsmith, Circuit Court Judge
Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-384
Submitted November 1, 2025 – Filed November 26, 2025

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Gary Howard Johnson, II, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Mark Reynolds
Farthing, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie
Stone, III, of Bluffton, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jakavis Green appeals his convictions for habitual traffic
offender and driving under suspension (third offense) along with his concurrent
sentences of four years' and ninety days' imprisonment, respectively. On appeal,
Green argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress because
section 56-5-2120(b) of the South Carolina Code (1993) is unconstitutionally
vague, and as a result, law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the
traffic stop. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

We hold the issue is not preserved. See State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587
S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (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]. Issues not
raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal."); id. at
142, 587 S.E.2d at 694 ("A party need not use the exact name of a legal doctrine in
order to preserve it, but it must be clear that the argument has been presented on
that ground."); cf. State v. Neuman, 384 S.C. 395, 400-02, 683 S.E.2d 268, 270-71
(2009) (holding a constitutional issue was preserved for appellate review despite
the defendant using different language in the argument at trial because the trial
court's ruling indicated it understood and ruled on the constitutional issue).

AFFIRMED.1

KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and VINSON, JJ., concur.

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