State v. Fincher

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.

Stephen Trase Fincher, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-002384

Appeal From Laurens County
Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-141
Submitted April 1, 2020 – Filed May 20, 2020

AFFIRMED

Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, of Elizabeth
Franklin-Best, P.C., of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch,
Jr., both of Columbia; and Solicitor David Matthew
Stumbo, of Greenwood, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Stephen Trase Fincher appeals his conviction for first-degree
burglary and sentence of twenty-five years' imprisonment. On appeal, Fincher
argues the trial court erred (1) in allowing the trial to proceed in his absence
without a finding he voluntarily waived his right to be present and (2) by denying
his motion for directed verdict regarding the burglary of Metric Road because the
garage was not a dwelling. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in allowing the trial to proceed in Fincher's
absence: State v. Policao, 402 S.C. 547, 556, 741 S.E.2d 774, 778 (Ct. App. 2013)
("The general rule of issue preservation is if an issue was not raised to and ruled
upon by the [trial] court, it will not be considered for the first time on appeal."
(quoting State v. Porter, 389 S.C. 27, 37, 698 S.E.2d 237, 242 (Ct. App. 2010)));
In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 92, 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) ("A constitutional
claim must be raised and ruled upon to be preserved for appellate review."); State
v. Ravenell, 387 S.C. 449, 456, 692 S.E.2d 554, 558 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In order to
claim the protection afforded by the rule of law that a criminal defendant may be
tried in his absence only upon a trial court's finding that the defendant has received
the requisite notice of his right to be present and advisement that the trial would
proceed in his absence if he failed to attend, a defendant or his attorney must object
at the first opportunity to do so, and failure to so object constitutes waiver of the
issue on appeal." (emphasis added)).

2. As to whether the trial court erred by denying Fincher's motion for directed
verdict regarding the burglary of Metric Road because the garage was not a
dwelling: State v. Kinnerly, 331 S.C. 442, 455, 503 S.E.2d 214, 221 (Ct. App.
1998) ("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. A
defendant cannot argue on appeal an issue in support of his directed verdict motion
when the issue was not presented to the trial court below." (citations omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

LOCKEMY, C.J., and GEATHERS and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

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