State v. Ramey ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • 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.
    Michael Ramey, Appellant.
    Appellate Case No. 2013-002459
    Appeal From York County
    Donald B. Hocker, Circuit Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-267
    Heard April 21, 2015 – Filed May 27, 2015
    AFFIRMED
    Appellate Defender Laura Ruth Baer, of Columbia, for
    Appellant.
    Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
    Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe,
    both of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of
    York, for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Michael Ramey appeals the twelve-year sentence resulting from
    his guilty plea to assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct with a
    minor in the second degree. Ramey argues the trial court erred in admitting
    statements during sentencing that were made to a therapist thereby violating
    section 19-11-95 of the South Carolina Code (2014). We affirm pursuant to Rule
    220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dunbar, 
    356 S.C. 138
    ,
    142, 
    587 S.E.2d 691
    , 693-94 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for
    appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge.
    Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on
    appeal."); id. at 142, 
    587 S.E.2d at 694
     ("A party need not use the exact name of a
    legal doctrine in order to preserve it, but it must be clear that the argument has
    been presented on that ground."); id. at 142-43, 
    587 S.E.2d at 694
     (finding the
    reversal of a defendant's conviction by the appellate court erroneous when the basis
    for reversal was noncompliance with a statute that was never alluded to at trial
    rendering the issue unpreserved); State v. Burgess, 
    408 S.C. 421
    , 435, 
    759 S.E.2d 407
    , 414 (2014) (finding any argument regarding a statute unpreserved when the
    applicability of the statute was not raised to the trial court).
    AFFIRMED.
    THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2015-UP-267

Filed Date: 5/27/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024