Primus v. SCDC

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

James Anthony Primus, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2020-000727

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-230
Submitted May 1, 2022 – Filed June 1, 2022

AFFIRMED

James Anthony Primus, pro se.

Imani Diane Byas, of South Carolina Department of
Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: James Anthony Primus appeals the Administrative Law Court
(ALC's) order dismissing his appeal as moot. On appeal to this court, Primus
argues the ALC improperly dismissed his appeal as moot because a miscalculation
of time-served credit in his possession of crack cocaine sentence affected the start
date of his sentences for his remaining convictions. Because Primus did not make
this specific argument to the ALC, we affirm 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 [ALC] to be preserved
for appellate review."); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694
(2003) ("A party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on
appeal.").

AFFIRMED.1

GEATHERS and HILL, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

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