Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-528 - State v. McKenzie

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

The State, Respondent,

v.

Leroy Alvin McKenzie, Appellant.


Appeal From Sumter County
Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-528
Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed December 2, 2011   


AFFIRMED


Leroy A. McKenzie, pro se.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Alphonso Simon, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Ernest A. Finney, III, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Leroy Alvin McKenzie appeals the circuit court's order denying his post-trial motions, arguing the circuit court erred in not allowing him to amend a motion for a new trial after he exhausted his direct appeal.[1]  We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Williams, 386 S.C. 503, 509, 690 S.E.2d 62, 65 (2010) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Rule 29(a), SCRCrimP ("Except for motions for new trials based on after-discovered evidence, post trial motions shall be made within ten (10) days after the imposition of the sentence."); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-27-20 (2003) (providing that post-conviction relief is the exclusive remedy to challenge a conviction once a direct appeal is exhausted).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


[1] Because they were never ruled on by the circuit court, all other issues raised by McKenzie are unpreserved for our review.  State v. Moore, 357 S.C 458, 464-65, 593 S.E.2d 608, 612 (2004) (holding that an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court in order to be preserved for appellate review).

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