State v. Ratliff

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.

Richard David Ratliff, Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County

R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-033

Submitted January 3, 2012 – Filed January
25, 2012   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Assistant  Attorney General William Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Richard David Ratliff appeals his convictions for three counts of
second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor, two counts of lewd act with
a minor, and three counts of criminal solicitation of a minor.  Ratliff argues
the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant and prejudicial character
evidence.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v.
Haselden, 353 S.C. 190, 196, 577 S.E.2d 445, 448 (2003) (holding an issue was not preserved for review when the party
argued one ground at trial and another on appeal); Wierszewski v. Tokarick,
308 S.C. 441, 444 n.2, 418 S.E.2d 557, 559 n.2 (Ct. App. 1992) ("An issue
is not preserved for review merely because the trial court mentions it.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and
KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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