State v. Newland

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.

Debra Solt Newland, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-202968

Appeal From Greenville County
Robin B. Stilwell, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-483
Submitted December 1, 2013 – Filed December 23, 2013

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Deputy Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 455, 503 S.E.2d 214, 221 (Ct. App.
1998), aff'd, 337 S.C. 617, 524 S.E.2d 837 (1999) ("In reviewing a denial of
directed verdict, issues not raised to the trial court in support of the directed verdict
motion are not preserved for appellate review."); State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5, 377
S.E.2d 581, 584 (1989) ("A party cannot argue one ground for a directed verdict in
trial and then an alternative ground on appeal."); State v. Bailey, 368 S.C. 39, 43
n.4, 626 S.E.2d 898, 900 n.4 (Ct. App. 2006) ("If a defendant presents evidence
after the denial of his directed verdict motion at the close of the State's case, he
must make another directed verdict motion at the close of all evidence in order to
appeal the sufficiency of the evidence."); State v. Adams, 332 S.C. 139, 144, 504
S.E.2d 124, 126 (Ct. App. 1998) (finding the defendant's argument was not
preserved because the "precise argument [asserted on appeal] was neither raised to
nor ruled upon by the trial court," and "the record [did] not reflect that [the
defendant] renewed the [directed verdict] motion at the close of his case").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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