Town of Williamston v. McDaniel

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

Town of
Williamston, Respondent/Appellant,

v.

Beth H.
McDaniel, Appellant/Respondent.

Appeal From Anderson County

 J. C. Buddy Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-412

Submitted September 1, 2010 – Filed
September 20, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of
Columbia, for Appellant/Respondent.

Andrew F. Lindemann, of Columbia, for Respondent/Appellant.

PER CURIAM:  Beth
H. McDaniel pled guilty in the Town of Williamston's (Town's) municipal court
to thirty-one counts of presenting false checks for payment and was sentenced
to ninety days' imprisonment.  Upon review, the circuit court affirmed
McDaniel's sentence but ordered that she receive "one for one" good
time credits and ordered her released.  McDaniel appeals, arguing the circuit
court erred in failing to reverse her guilty plea when she did not knowingly
and voluntarily waive her right to counsel.  The Town cross-appeals, arguing
the circuit court erred in ordering McDaniel released on the basis of good time
credits.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities: 

1.  As to McDaniel's issue concerning her guilty plea:  State v. Bryant,
383 S.C. 410, 418, 680 S.E.2d 11, 15 (Ct. App. 2009) (requiring that an issue
must be both raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court to be preserved for
this court's review); Williams v. Williams, 329 S.C. 569, 579, 496
S.E.2d 23, 29 (Ct. App. 1998) ("The circuit court has the authority to
hear motions to alter or amend the judgment when it sits in an appellate
capacity, and these motions are required in order to preserve issues for
further review by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court in cases where the
circuit court fails to address an issue raised by a party."), rev'd on
other grounds, 335 S.C. 386, 517 S.E.2d 689 (1999); City of Rock Hill v.
Suchenski, 374 S.C. 12, 16, 646 S.E.2d 879, 880 (2007) (applying this rule
in a criminal matter). 

2.  As to the Town's issue of good time credits and early
release:  State v. Bynes, 304 S.C. 62, 65, 403 S.E.2d 126, 127 (Ct. App. 1991)
(requiring a contemporaneous objection to preserve sentencing issue for
appellate review). 

AFFIRMED. 

HUFF and GEATHERS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur. 

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