Champion v. South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles ( 2016 )

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
Spring Champion, Appellant,
v.
South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles,
Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2015-000014
Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
S. Phillip Lenski, Administrative Law Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-009
Submitted November 1, 2015 – Filed January 13, 2016
AFFIRMED
James Ross Snell, Jr. and Vicki D. Koutsogiannis, both
of the Law Office Of James R. Snell, Jr., LLC, of
Lexington, for Appellant.
General Counsel Frank L. Valenta, Jr. and Deputy
General Counsel Philip S. Porter, both of the South
Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, of Blythewood,
for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Spring Champion appeals the administrative law court's decision
affirming her designation as a habitual traffic offender. We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Burton, 356 S.C. 259,
265 n.5, 589 S.E.2d 6, 9 n.5 (2003) ("A pro se litigant who knowingly elects to
represent himself assumes full responsibility for complying with the substantive
and procedural requirements of the law."); Pye v. Estate of Fox, 369 S.C. 555, 566,
633 S.E.2d 505, 510 (2006) ("It is well settled that an issue cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court
to be preserved."); Lapp v. S.C. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 387 S.C. 500, 507, 692
S.E.2d 565, 569 (Ct. App. 2010) ("To be preserved for appellate review, an issue
must have been: (1) raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, (2) raised by the
appellant, (3) raised in a timely manner, and (4) raised to the trial court with
sufficient specificity.").
AFFIRMED.1
FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.