State v. Lowrance ( 2019 )

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.
Boyce Derek Lowrance, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2017-001070
Appeal From Pickens County
Letitia H. Verdin, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-417
Submitted November 1, 2019 – Filed December 31, 2019
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for
Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, both of Columbia,
and Solicitor William Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville,
for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: 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."); State v. Campbell, 376 S.C. 212, 215, 656
S.E.2d 371, 373 (2008) ("It is a long-standing rule of law that a trial judge is
without jurisdiction to consider a criminal matter once the term of court during
which judgment was entered expires."); State v. Hicks, 377 S.C. 322, 325, 659
S.E.2d 499, 500 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The authority to change a sentence rests
exclusively with the sentencing judge and is within his or her discretion.").1
AFFIRMED.2
SHORT, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We further hold that Lowrance's argument that his resentencing amounted to a
violation of the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution and the South
Carolina Constitution was not preserved for appellate review. See State v. Brown,
402 S.C. 119, 125 n.2, 740 S.E.2d 493, 496 n.2 (2013) (noting an issue is not
preserved for appellate view unless it has been (1) timely raised with sufficient
specificity at trial by the appellant and (2) ruled on by the trial court).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.