State v. White

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.

James White, Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County

Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-267

Submitted April 2, 2012 – Filed May 2,
2012   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defenders Susan B. Hackett and
Tristan M. Shaffer, both of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: James White appeals his concurrent ten-year sentences for two
counts of distribution of crack cocaine, second offense.  He argues the circuit
court erred in determining the Omnibus Crime Reduction and Sentencing Reform
Act of 2010 (Act) prevented the circuit court from suspending his sentences.  We affirm.[1]

Initially, we observe that
White failed to preserve this issue for appellate review.  See State v. Wise, 359
S.C. 14, 21, 596 S.E.2d 475, 478 (2004) (stating an issue must have been raised
to and ruled on by the circuit court to be preserved for appellate review); State
v. Johnston, 333 S.C. 459, 462, 510 S.E.2d 423, 425 (1999) ("[A]
challenge to sentencing must be raised at trial, or the issue will not be
preserved for appellate review."); State v. Winestock, 271 S.C.
473, 475, 248 S.E.2d 307, 308 (1978) ("[An] appellant's failure to timely
object to or seek modification of his sentence in the [circuit] court precludes
him from presenting the question to [the appellate c]ourt for the first time on
appeal.").

However, even if this issue
were preserved, White's argument fails on the merits.  See State v.
Leopard, 349 S.C. 467, 471, 563 S.E.2d 342, 344 (Ct. App. 2002) ("[I]n construing a statute, words must be
given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced
construction to limit or expand the statute's operation."); Omnibus Crime Reduction and Sentencing Reform Act,
2010 S.C. Acts No. 273, § 65 (stating the Act's
amendments "[do] not affect pending actions . . . or alter . . . any
penalty . . . incurred under the repealed or amended law, unless the
repealed or amended provision shall so expressly provide").  Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER,
KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 

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