State v. Ritter

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.

Willie Ritter, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-210570

Appeal From Richland County
Paul M. Burch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-232
Submitted May 1, 2014 – Filed June 18, 2014

AFFIRMED

William Bertram Von Herrmann, of Von Herrmann Law
Firm, of Conway, for Appellant.

Assistant Deputy Attorney General David A. Spencer, of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Rule 29(a), SCRCrimP ("Except for motions for new trials based on
after-discovered evidence, post-trial motions shall be made within ten (10) days
after the imposition of the sentence."); State v. Warren, 392 S.C. 235, 240, 708
S.E.2d 234, 236 (Ct. App. 2011) (holding the trial court only had authority to
consider the issue raised in a timely filed post-trial motion and lacked authority to
consider the issue in a motion to amend filed more than three years later).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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