Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-MO-029 - State v. Lattimore

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

The State, Respondent,

v.

Reginald R. Lattimore, Appellant.


Appeal From Greenville County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge


Memorandum Opinion No. 2010-MO-029
Heard October 6, 2010 – Filed November 8, 2010


AFFIRMED


Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Deputy Director for Legal Services Teresa A. Knox, Assistant Chief Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin and Legal Counsel Tommy Evans, Jr., of SC Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, all of Columbia, for Respondent.


PER CURIAM:   Richard R. Lattimore appeals from an order issued in his  probation revocation hearing that required he be placed on mandatory GPS monitoring for life pursuant to Section 23-3-540(C) of the South Carolina Code (2007 & Supp. 2009).  Appellate counsel might have challenged the constitutionality of the statute in question by arguing, for example, overbreadth and its ex post facto application to Lattimore.  In addition, appellate counsel could have fully addressed the Eighth Amendment concerns of excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment.  However, all these potential arguments were either never raised or were abandoned on appeal in this case of first impression due to the summary nature of the one-page argument presented in the Appellant's brief.  Accordingly, we affirm this appeal based on Rule 220(b) and the following authorities: Rule 208(b)(1)(B), SCACR ("Ordinarily, no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of issues on appeal."); Video Gaming Consultants, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 342 S.C. 34, 42 n.7, 535 S.E.2d 642, 647 n.7 (2000) (conclusory arguments in brief deemed abandoned); Solomon v. City Realty Co.,262 S.C. 198, 201, 203 S.E.2d 435, 436 (1974) (same); Fields v. Melrose Ltd. P'ship, 312 S.C. 102, 106 n.3,439 S.E.2d 283, 285 n.3 (Ct. App. 1993) ("[A]n issue is deemed abandoned on appeal and, therefore, not presented for review, if it is argued in a short, conclusory statement without supporting authority.").

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.