McLaughlin v. Ninan

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
Markola McLaughlin, Respondent,
v.
Sonny M. Ninan, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2010-180208
Appeal From Greenville County
Robin B. Stilwell, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-261
Heard February 5, 2013 – Filed June 19, 2013
AFFIRMED
James P. O'Connell, of Easley, for Appellant.
Markola McLaughlin, of Easley, pro se, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: ISSUE I: Rule 208(b)(1)(B), SCACR ("Ordinarily, no point will be
considered which is not set forth in the statement of the issues on appeal"); Rule
208(b)(1)(D), SCACR (requiring the brief of appellant be divided into as many
parts as there are issues to be argued, the particular issue to be addressed set forth
in distinctive type at the head of each part, and the argument section of the brief
contain discussion and citations of authority); State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125,
134, 620 S.E.2d 737, 741 (2005) (noting an argument advanced on appeal that is
not raised and ruled on below is not preserved for review); State v. Crocker, 366
S.C. 394, 399 n.1, 621 S.E.2d 890, 893 n.1 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding conclusory
statements unaccompanied by argument and citation to authority are insufficient to
preserve an issue for appellate review, and noting failure to provide such argument
and citation renders an issue abandoned). ISSUE II and III: Rule 208(b)(1)(B),
SCACR (noting the statement of each issue on appeal shall be concise and direct,
and broad general statements of issues may be disregarded by the appellate court);
id. ("Ordinarily, no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement
of the issues on appeal"); Rule 208(b)(1)(D), SCACR (requiring the brief of
appellant be divided into as many parts as there are issues to be argued, the
particular issue to be addressed set forth in distinctive type at the head of each part,
and the argument section of the brief contain discussion and citations of authority);
Freiburger, 366 S.C. at 134, 620 S.E.2d at 741 (noting an argument advanced on
appeal that is not raised and ruled on below is not preserved for review); Crocker,
366 S.C. at 399 n.1, 621 S.E.2d at 893 n.1 (holding conclusory statements
unaccompanied by argument and citation to authority are insufficient to preserve
an issue for appellate review, and noting failure to provide such argument and
citation renders an issue abandoned); ISSUE IV: Rule 208(b)(1)(B), SCACR
("Ordinarily, no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of
the issues on appeal"); Rule 208(b)(1)(D), SCACR (requiring the brief of appellant
be divided into as many parts as there are issues to be argued, the particular issue
to be addressed set forth in distinctive type at the head of each part, and the
argument section of the brief contain discussion and citations of authority);
Freiburger, 366 S.C. at 134, 620 S.E.2d at 741 (noting an argument advanced on
appeal that is not raised and ruled on below is not preserved for review); Noisette
v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (holding this court should
not address an issue which was not explicitly ruled on by the trial court or brought
to the trial court's attention in a motion to alter or amend); McCall v. IKON, 380
S.C. 649, 659-60, 670 S.E.2d 695, 701 (Ct. App. 2008) (noting an appealed order
comes to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness, with the burden on
appellant to demonstrate reversible error, and the appellate court is obliged to
reverse when error is called to its attention, but it is not in the business of figuring
out on its own whether error exists).
AFFIRMED.
HUFF, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.