Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-053 - State v. Herring

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.

Kendell Herring, Appellant.


Appeal From Horry County
Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-053
Submitted January 2, 2009 – Filed January 15, 2009


AFFIRMED


Chief Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Kendell Herring appeals his conviction and sentence for assault and battery with intent to kill, arguing the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because there was a variance between the State’s evidence and the indictment.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 208(b)(1)(B), SCACR (“Ordinarily, no point will be considered which does not set forth in the statement of issues on appeal.”); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-19-100 (2003) (stating that after an amendment to an indictment, “the trial shall proceed in all respects and with the same consequences as if the indictment had originally been returned as so amended”); Ex parte Morris, 367 S.C. 56, 65, 624 S.E.2d 649, 653-54 (2006) (stating an unappealed ruling is the law of the case). 

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., SHORT and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. 


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