McIntosh v. State

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

Billy Wayne McIntosh, Appellant,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2020-000741

Appeal From Lexington County
Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-262
Submitted May 1, 2022 – Filed June 15, 2022

AFFIRMED

Billy Wayne McIntosh, pro se.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General W. Jeffrey Young, Assistant Attorney
General Harley Littleton Kirkland, Assistant Attorney
General Leon David Leggett, III, all of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Billy Wayne McIntosh appeals a circuit court order declaring his
1977 kidnapping conviction required him to register as a sex offender pursuant to
section 23-3-430(C)(15) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2021). McIntosh
argues the retroactive application of section 23-3-430(C)(15) violated his rights to
equal protection and due process of law. We affirm.

The order on appeal included no rulings regarding the effect of the retroactive
application of the statute on McIntosh's constitutional rights, and McIntosh did not
move to alter or amend the order for rulings on these issues. Therefore, we hold
McIntosh failed to preserve these issues for appellate review and affirm the
appealed order pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is
axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have
been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate
review."); Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 24, 602 S.E.2d 772, 780
(2004) ("A party must file [a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP] when an
issue or argument has been raised, but not ruled on, in order to preserve it for
appellate review.").

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

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