Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-256 - State v. Settles

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT
BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

Henry Leon Settles,        Appellant.


Appeal From McCormick County
William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-256
Submitted February 23, 2004 – Filed April 15, 2004   


AFFIRMED


C. Rauch Wise, of Greenwood, for Appellant,

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.


PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to South Carolina Rules of Appellate Practice, Rule 220, and the following authorities:  As to Issue I:  State v. Prioleau, 345 S.C. 404, 411, 548 S.E.2d 213, 216 (2001) (stating that a party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal.);  see State v. Smalls, 336 S.C. 301, 519 S.E.2d 793 (1999) (“The true test of an indictment’s validity is not whether it could be made more definite and certain, but whether it contains the necessary elements of the offense intended to be charged and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet.”); see also State v. Gunn, 313 S.C. 124, 130, 437 S.E.2d 75, 78 (1993) (stating that the sufficiency of the indictment must be determined by viewing it “with a practical eye in view of the surrounding circumstances”). 

As to Issue II:  Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 497 S.E.2d 731 (1998) (finding that in order to preserve an issue for appeal, specific grounds in support of the objection must be clearly stated); see State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 377 S.E.2d 581 (1989) (noting that merely stating the “standard motions” are being made fails to preserve the issue for appeal); see also State v. Harry, 321 S.C. 273, 468 S.E.2d 76 (Ct. App. 1996) (stating that for an appellate court to consider issues raised in a directed verdict motion made, the motion must be renewed at the close of all evidence); see also Harkins v. Greenville County, 340 S.C. 606, 533 S.E.2d 886 (2000) (stating that Appellant has the burden of presenting a sufficient record upon which this Court can render a decision). 

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.