State v. Day

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT
SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS
PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Michael D. Day, Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County

R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-205

Heard February 3, 2009 – Filed May 18,
2009

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Deputy Attorney General
John W. McIntosh, Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney
General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers,
of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER
CURIAM:  Michael D. Day appeals his
conviction for first degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor.  He contends
section 17-23-175 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2008), which provides for
the admission of videotaped interviews of child sexual abuse victims under
certain circumstances, was erroneously applied to his case in contradiction to
the savings clause included in the enacting legislation.  Day further contends
the application of the statute constitutes an ex post facto violation. 
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State
v. Bryant, Op. No. 4522 (S.C. Ct. App. Filed Mar. 25, 2009) (Shearouse Adv.
Sh. No. 15 at 39, 43) (holding the savings clause accompanying the enacting
legislation did not preclude application of section 17-23-175 to cases tried
after the date of its enactment because section 17-23-175 did not repeal or amend
any existing law); Id. at 45 (finding the application of section
17-23-175 does not constitute an ex post facto violation because the
statute deals with evidentiary matters, which are not penal in nature); Futch
v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d
591, 598 (1999) (providing an appellate court need not address additional issues
if the resolution of another issue is dispositive).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.