State v. Neuman ( 2009 )


Menu:
  • Justice PLEICONES.

    I agree that the issue whether the statute is void for vagueness is preserved for our review since that is what the trial judge believed was being argued, and that is what he ruled upon. Moreover, I agree that appellant lacks standing to challenge the statute because his conduct clearly falls within its terms. In re Amir X.S., 371 S.C. 380, 639 S.E.2d 144 (2006). I would end the analysis here. Id. Finally, it is well-settled that an issue, unless a claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, cannot be raised for the first time at oral argument. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Serv. v. Basnight, 346 S.C. 241, 551 S.E.2d 274 (Ct.App.2001). I therefore do not join the remainder of the majority’s discussion.

    I concur in the decision to affirm appellant’s appeal.

Document Info

Docket Number: 26676

Judges: Beatty, Toal, Waller, Kittredge, Pleicones

Filed Date: 6/29/2009

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/14/2024