State v. Sun ( 2014 )

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.
Joseph C. Sun, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2011-200406
Appeal From Jasper County
Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-029
Submitted October 1, 2013 – Filed January 22, 2014
AFFIRMED
Joseph C. Sun, of Bluffton, pro se.
Solicitor Darrell T. Johnson, Jr., of Hardeeville, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:
1. As to whether the circuit court erred in overlooking Joseph C. Sun's response to
the magistrates court's return: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691,
693-94 (2003) (stating the circuit court must rule on an issue in order for it to be
preserved for appellate review); State v. Policao, 402 S.C. 547, 556, 741 S.E.2d
774, 778 (Ct. App. 2013) (recognizing an appellate court will not review
arguments raised for the first time on appeal); City of Rock Hill v. Suchenski, 374
S.C. 12, 16, 646 S.E.2d 879, 880 (2007) (holding when the circuit court did not
rule on an issue in its final order and the party did not make a post-judgment
motion for a ruling, the issue was unpreserved).
2. As to whether the circuit court erred in determining the magistrates court
provided Sun sufficient notice of the bench trial: Van Blarcum v. City of N. Myrtle
Beach, 337 S.C. 446, 453, 523 S.E.2d 486, 490 (Ct. App. 1999) (stating a
reviewing court cannot address an issue on which there is an implicit rather than
explicit ruling); State v. Bruce, 402 S.C. 621, 625, 741 S.E.2d 590, 592 (Ct. App.
2013) ("Unless the [circuit] court makes sufficiently specific factual findings on
the record, this court has no basis on which to review those findings or the [circuit]
court's legal conclusions."); State v. Blackwell-Selim, 392 S.C. 1, 4, 707 S.E.2d
426, 428 (2011) (holding because the circuit court failed to make specific findings
of fact to support its ruling, "there was nothing for the [c]ourt of [a]ppeals to
review").
AFFIRMED.1
FEW, C.J., and PIEPER and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.