Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-412 - Town of Williamston v. McDaniel

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 Court of Appeals

Town of Williamston, Respondent/Appellant,

v.

Beth H. McDaniel, Appellant/Respondent.


Appeal From Anderson County
 J. C. Buddy Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-412
Submitted September 1, 2010 – Filed September 20, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Assistant Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant/Respondent.

Andrew F. Lindemann, of Columbia, for Respondent/Appellant.

PER CURIAM:  Beth H. McDaniel pled guilty in the Town of Williamston's (Town's) municipal court to thirty-one counts of presenting false checks for payment and was sentenced to ninety days' imprisonment.  Upon review, the circuit court affirmed McDaniel's sentence but ordered that she receive "one for one" good time credits and ordered her released.  McDaniel appeals, arguing the circuit court erred in failing to reverse her guilty plea when she did not knowingly and voluntarily waive her right to counsel.  The Town cross-appeals, arguing the circuit court erred in ordering McDaniel released on the basis of good time credits.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1.  As to McDaniel's issue concerning her guilty plea:  State v. Bryant, 383 S.C. 410, 418, 680 S.E.2d 11, 15 (Ct. App. 2009) (requiring that an issue must be both raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court to be preserved for this court's review); Williams v. Williams, 329 S.C. 569, 579, 496 S.E.2d 23, 29 (Ct. App. 1998) ("The circuit court has the authority to hear motions to alter or amend the judgment when it sits in an appellate capacity, and these motions are required in order to preserve issues for further review by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court in cases where the circuit court fails to address an issue raised by a party."), rev'd on other grounds, 335 S.C. 386, 517 S.E.2d 689 (1999); City of Rock Hill v. Suchenski, 374 S.C. 12, 16, 646 S.E.2d 879, 880 (2007) (applying this rule in a criminal matter). 

2.  As to the Town's issue of good time credits and early release:  State v. Bynes, 304 S.C. 62, 65, 403 S.E.2d 126, 127 (Ct. App. 1991) (requiring a contemporaneous objection to preserve sentencing issue for appellate review). 

AFFIRMED. 

HUFF and GEATHERS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur. 


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