State v. Priester

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.

Walter Calvin Priester,
II, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

 J. Michelle Childs, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-046

Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed January
25, 2012   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Solicitor
Daniel E. Johnson, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Walter Calvin Priester, II, appeals his indecent exposure conviction, arguing the
trial court erred in qualifying the State's expert witness.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities:  State v. Lopez, 352 S.C. 373, 378, 574 S.E.2d 210, 213
(Ct. App. 2002) (finding an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial
court in order to be considered on appeal); State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1,
5, 377 S.E.2d 581, 584 (1989) (holding a party cannot argue one ground at trial
and then an alternative ground on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J.,
THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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