State v. Rollins

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.

Myrtle
Elizabeth Rollins, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

 Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-264

Submitted May 1, 2009 – Filed June 2, 2009   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,

Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Myrtle Elizabeth Rollins appeals her two-year sentence
for attempt to obtain a controlled substance by fraud following her termination
from the York County Drug Court Program (Drug Court).  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the trial court erred in finding Rollins did not
successfully complete Drug Court:  State
v. Lee, 350 S.C. 125, 130, 564 S.E.2d
372, 75 (Ct. App. 2002) (stating an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate
review).

2.  As to whether the trial court erred in failing to exercise its discretion to
reduce Rollins’s original sentence: Rule 29, SCRCrimP (“Except for motions for new trials based on
after-discovered evidence, post-trial motions shall be made within ten days
after the imposition of the sentence.”); State v. Campbell, 376 S.C. 212, 215-16, 656 S.E.2d 371, 373 (2008)
(explaining the long-standing rule of law that a trial court is without
jurisdiction to consider a criminal matter once the term of court during which
judgment was entered expires); State v. Perkins, 378 S.C. 57, 61, 661
S.E.2d 366, 368 (2008) (upholding the imposition of an appellant’s original
sentence where it found the trial court correctly determined that appellant
violated a condition of the suspended sentence, and therefore, properly imposed
appellant’s original sentence).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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