State v. Ravenell

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.

Devar Tremaine Ravenell, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-001704

Appeal From Berkeley County
Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-102
Submitted February 1, 2019 – Filed March 6, 2019

AFFIRMED

Eric B. Laquiere, of Laquiere Law Firm, LLC, of Johns
Island, for Appellant.

Matthew C. Buchanan, of the South Carolina Department
of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003)
("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been
raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court]. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the
trial court will not be considered on appeal."); State v. Geer, 391 S.C. 179, 193,
705 S.E.2d 441, 448 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[A]n issue may not be raised for the first
time in a post-trial motion." (quoting S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp.
of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007))); State v. Williams, 303
S.C. 410, 411-12, 401 S.E.2d 168, 169 (1991) (finding an issue unpreserved
because the appellant failed to object at a sentencing hearing); Fleming v. State,
399 S.C. 380, 381, 731 S.E.2d 889, 889 (2012) (per curiam) (finding no issues
were preserved for appellate review because the appellant made no objections
during a probation revocation hearing); State v. Head, 330 S.C. 79, 87, 498 S.E.2d
389, 393 (Ct. App. 1997) ("This court cannot address unpreserved errors.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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