Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-267 - State v. White

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.

James White, Appellant.


Appeal From Lexington County
Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-267
Submitted April 2, 2012 – Filed May 2, 2012   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defenders Susan B. Hackett and Tristan M. Shaffer, both of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: James White appeals his concurrent ten-year sentences for two counts of distribution of crack cocaine, second offense.  He argues the circuit court erred in determining the Omnibus Crime Reduction and Sentencing Reform Act of 2010 (Act) prevented the circuit court from suspending his sentences.  We affirm.[1]

Initially, we observe that White failed to preserve this issue for appellate review.  See State v. Wise, 359 S.C. 14, 21, 596 S.E.2d 475, 478 (2004) (stating an issue must have been raised to and ruled on by the circuit court to be preserved for appellate review); State v. Johnston, 333 S.C. 459, 462, 510 S.E.2d 423, 425 (1999) ("[A] challenge to sentencing must be raised at trial, or the issue will not be preserved for appellate review."); State v. Winestock, 271 S.C. 473, 475, 248 S.E.2d 307, 308 (1978) ("[An] appellant's failure to timely object to or seek modification of his sentence in the [circuit] court precludes him from presenting the question to [the appellate c]ourt for the first time on appeal.").

However, even if this issue were preserved, White's argument fails on the merits.  See State v. Leopard, 349 S.C. 467, 471, 563 S.E.2d 342, 344 (Ct. App. 2002) ("[I]n construing a statute, words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation."); Omnibus Crime Reduction and Sentencing Reform Act, 2010 S.C. Acts No. 273, § 65 (stating the Act's amendments "[do] not affect pending actions . . . or alter . . . any penalty . . . incurred under the repealed or amended law, unless the repealed or amended provision shall so expressly provide").  Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 


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