Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2005-UP-586 - State v. Pate
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, Appellant,

v.

Thomas Andrew Pate, Respondent.


Appeal From Cherokee County
J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-586
Submitted November 1, 2005 – Filed November, 16 2005  


AFFIRMED


Attorney General Henry McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Chief, State Grand Jury Jennifer D. Evans, Assistant Attorney General Jason Peavy,  all of Columbia, for Appellant.

C. Rauch Wise, 305 Main St., of Greenwood, Kim R. Varner, Varner & Segura, of Greenville, Stephen Drew Geoly, Geoly at Law, of Greenwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  The State appeals from a ruling by the circuit court granting Thomas Andrew Pate’s motion to enforce his plea agreement with the State, resulting in the dismissal of charges against Pate.  On appeal, the State argues the trial judge erred by considering the terms of a written plea agreement, thereby preventing the State from prosecuting Pate, because the terms of the written plea agreement were neither put on the record during Pate’s guilty plea hearing nor incorporated into the record.  We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities:  State v. Rogers, 361 S.C. 178, 183, 603 S.E.2d 910, 912 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) (noting “[a] party need not use the exact name of a legal doctrine in order to preserve it, but it must be clear that the argument has been presented on that ground.”); State v. Byram, 326 S.C. 107, 113, 485 S.E.2d 360, 363 (1997) (recognizing a party may not argue one ground at trial and another on appeal); State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 411, 401 S.E.2d 168, 169 (1991) (finding an appellate court will not consider issues that are not raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., AND HUFF AND BEATTY, JJ., concur.


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