Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-205 - State v. Day

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.

Michael D. Day, Appellant.


Appeal From Lexington County
R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-205
Heard February 3, 2009 – Filed May 18, 2009


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Michael D. Day appeals his conviction for first degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor.  He contends section 17-23-175 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2008), which provides for the admission of videotaped interviews of child sexual abuse victims under certain circumstances, was erroneously applied to his case in contradiction to the savings clause included in the enacting legislation.  Day further contends the application of the statute constitutes an ex post facto violation.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Bryant, Op. No. 4522 (S.C. Ct. App. Filed Mar. 25, 2009) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 15 at 39, 43) (holding the savings clause accompanying the enacting legislation did not preclude application of section 17-23-175 to cases tried after the date of its enactment because section 17-23-175 did not repeal or amend any existing law); Id. at 45 (finding the application of section 17-23-175 does not constitute an ex post facto violation because the statute deals with evidentiary matters, which are not penal in nature); Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (providing an appellate court need not address additional issues if the resolution of another issue is dispositive).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.