Odom v. Wilson ( 2013 )

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 Supreme Court
Anthony C. Odom, Appellant,
v.
Alan Wilson, in his official capacity as Attorney General
of the State of South Carolina, J. Strom Thurmond, Jr.,
Barry Barnett, and Christina T. Adams, in their official
capacities as South Carolina Circuit Solicitors,
Respondents.
Appellate Case No. 2012-210914
Appeal from Spartanburg County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge
Memorandum Opinion No. 2013-MO-022
Heard June 6, 2013 – Filed July 17, 2013
AFFIRMED
Tina L. M. Young, of Aiken, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Deputy Attorney General J. Emory Smith, Jr., of
Columbia, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Anthony Odom sued Attorney General Alan Wilson and
all sixteen South Carolina solicitors in their official capacities seeking inter alia
injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent the State from prosecuting him on
charges of solicitation of a minor in Oconee County. The circuit court dismissed
the case, finding it lacked jurisdiction to enjoin an ongoing criminal prosecution.
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
Herron v. Century BMW, 395 S.C. 461, 465, 719 S.E.2d 640, 642 (2012) ("Issue
preservation rules are designed to give the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on
the issues, and thus provide us with a platform for meaningful appellate review.");
I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422, 526 S.E.2d 716, 724
(2000) ("If the losing party has raised an issue in the lower court, but the court fails
to rule upon it, the party must file a motion to alter or amend the judgment in order
to preserve the issue for appellate review.").
AFFIRMED.
TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ.,
concur.