Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-556 - In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Luis Lopez

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

In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Luis Lopez, Appellant.


Appeal From Greenville County
C. Victor Pyle, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-556
Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed December 9, 2011


AFFIRMED


LaNelle C. DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Luis Lopez appeals his civil commitment to the South Carolina Department of Mental Health as a sexually violent predator.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the circuit court erred in denying Lopez's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the proceedings violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act: Rule 6(d), SCRCP (requiring "[a] written motion other than one which may be heard ex parte, and notice of the hearing thereof, shall be served not later than ten days before the time specified for the hearing, unless a different period is fixed by these rules or by an order of the court"); Dedes v. Strickland,  307 S.C. 152, 155, 414 S.E.2d 132, 134 (1992) (finding the appellant did not receive timely notice of the motion and motion hearing as required by Rule 6(d), SCRCP, when the appellant received notice of the motion and hearing only two days before the hearing).

2.  As to whether the circuit court erred in denying Lopez's motion for a directed verdict: Rule 50(a), SCRCP ("When upon a trial the case presents only questions of law the judge may direct a verdict . . . .  A motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor."); Becker v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,  339 S.C. 629, 634, 529 S.E.2d 758, 761 (Ct. App. 2000) (finding the moving party failed to properly preserve the issue for review because it failed to specify any grounds for the motion). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


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