State v. Caughman

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.

William Craig Caughman, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001867

Appeal From Lexington County
Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-009
Heard September 12, 2019 – Filed January 15, 2020

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Taylor Davis Gilliam, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch,
Jr., Assistant Attorney General Joshua Abraham
Edwards, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Samuel R.
Hubbard, III, of Lexington, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: William Craig Caughman appeals his conviction for hit-and-run
resulting in death, arguing the circuit court erred in (1) admitting evidence seized
during the execution of a search warrant and (2) considering his alcohol
consumption during the sentencing phase of his trial. We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the circuit court erred in admitting evidence seized during the
execution of a search warrant: Dreher v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control,
412 S.C. 244, 249–50, 772 S.E.2d 505, 508 (2015) ("An unappealed ruling is the
law of the case and requires affirmance." (quoting Shirley's Iron Works, Inc. v. City
of Union, 403 S.C. 560, 573, 743 S.E.2d 778, 785 (2013)); id. at 250, 772 S.E.2d at
508 ("Thus, should the appealing party fail to raise all of the grounds upon which a
lower court's decision was based, those unappealed findings—whether correct or
not—become the law of the case."); Skywaves I Corp. v. Branch Banking & Tr.
Co., 423 S.C. 432, 451, 814 S.E.2d 643, 653–54 (Ct. App. 2018) (alterations in
original) ("Under the two[-]issue rule, whe[n] a decision is based on more than one
ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds
because the unappealed ground will become the law of the case." (quoting Jones v.
Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346, 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010), abrogated on other grounds
by Repko v. County of Georgetown, 424 S.C. 494, 818 S.E.2d 743 (2018)).

2. As to whether the circuit court erred in considering his alcohol consumption on
the day of the hit-and-run during the sentencing phase of his trial: State v.
Salisbury, 330 S.C. 250, 276, 498 S.E.2d 655, 669 (Ct. App. 1998) ("[A]ny alleged
error in sentencing . . . requires a contemporaneous objection to preserve the issue
for appellate review."); State v. Johnston, 333 S.C. 459, 462, 510 S.E.2d 423, 425
(1999) ("[Our supreme c]ourt has consistently held that a challenge to sentencing
must be raised at trial, or the issue will not be preserved for appellate review.");
State v. Stone, 376 S.C. 32, 35–36, 655 S.E.2d 487, 488–89 (2007) (providing an
appellant's argument on appeal was not preserved for review when the appellant
did not argue those grounds in support of his argument before the circuit court).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.