Opinion
Appellate Case No. 2015-000014 Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-009
01-13-2016
Spring Champion, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.
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.
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 The Administrative Law Court
S. Phillip Lenski, Administrative Law Judge
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 : 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. FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. --------