State v. Carter

Full title: The State, Respondent, v. Anthony Rodriekus Carter, Appellant.

Court: STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Apr 30, 2014

Appellate Case No. 2011-203566 (S.C. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2014)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2011-203566 Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-178

04-30-2014

The State, Respondent, v. Anthony Rodriekus Carter, Appellant.

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Senior Assistant Attorney General W. Edgar Salter, III, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Douglas A. Barfield, Jr., of Lancaster, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

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.

Appeal From Lancaster County

J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Senior Assistant Attorney General W. Edgar Salter, III, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Douglas A. Barfield, Jr., of Lancaster, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: We find any issue regarding the sufficiency of evidence that Anthony Rodriekus Carter fired the fatal shot or could be guilty under an accomplice liability theory is not preserved because he only presented a self-defense argument to the trial judge in support of his directed verdict motion. 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 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court]."); id. at 142, 587 S.E.2d at 694 ("A party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal."); State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 455, 503 S.E.2d 214, 221 (Ct. App. 1998) ("In reviewing a denial of directed verdict, issues not raised to the trial court in support of the directed verdict motion are not preserved for appellate review."); id. ("A defendant cannot argue on appeal an issue in support of his directed verdict motion when the issue was not presented to the trial court below."). AFFIRMED.¹

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

FEW, C.J., and WILLIAMS and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.