Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-619 - State v. Pringle
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

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.

Christopher M. Pringle, Appellant.


Appeal From Orangeburg County
Edward B. Cottingham, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-619
Submitted December 1, 2004 – Filed December 9, 2004


AFFIRMED


Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert D. Robbins, of Summerville, for Respondent.


PER CURIAM:  Christopher M. Pringle was convicted of driving under suspension (DUS), second offense, failure to stop for a blue light, and possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a crime of violence.  He received consecutive sentences of three years for failure to stop for a blue light and two years for possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a crime of violence, and a concurrent sixty day sentence for DUS.  On appeal, Pringle argues the trial court erred “by denying [Pringle’s] motion for a directed verdict when he was charged with being a violent felon in possession of a weapon under S.C. Code Section 16-23-30, and his prior offense, third-degree burglary, is not classified as a crime of violence.”  We affirm [1] pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 14-8-250 (Supp. 2003), Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 587 S.E.2d 691 (2003) (holding that in order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge); Id. (finding that issues not raised and ruled upon in trial court will not be considered on appeal); State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5, 377 S.E.2d 581, 584 (1989) (“A party cannot argue one ground for a directed verdict in trial and then an alternative ground on appeal.”); State v. Jordan, 255 S.C. 86, 177 S.E.2d 464 (1970) (determining that in reviewing denial of directed verdict motion, issues not raised to trial court in support of directed verdict motion are not preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, STILWELL, and SHORT, JJ., concur.


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