Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2006-UP-020 - In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Emory Michau

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

In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Emory Michau, Appellant.


Appeal From Charleston County
Roger M. Young, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-020
Submitted January 1, 2006 – Filed January 11, 2006   


AFFIRMED


David B. Marvel, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, Assistant Attorney General David M. Stumbo, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Appellant, Emory Michau, appeals from an order of the circuit court holding him in contempt for failing to cooperate in a psychiatric examination ordered by the court pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act.  On appeal, Michau contends the court erred in finding him in contempt because there was no lawful order upon which the court could find contempt thereof.  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.”); First Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (noting that where a party fails to cite any supporting authority or where the argument is merely a conclusory statement, the issue is deemed abandoned on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

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



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