From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McIntosh v. State

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Jun 15, 2022
No. 2022-UP-262 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 15, 2022)

Opinion

2022-UP-262 Appellate Case 2020-000741

06-15-2022

Billy Wayne McIntosh, Appellant, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Billy Wayne McIntosh, pro se. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General W. Jeffrey Young, Assistant Attorney General Harley Littleton Kirkland, Assistant Attorney General Leon David Leggett, III, all of Columbia, 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.

Submitted May 1, 2022

Appeal From Lexington County Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge

Billy Wayne McIntosh, pro se.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General W. Jeffrey Young, Assistant Attorney General Harley Littleton Kirkland, Assistant Attorney General Leon David Leggett, III, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

Billy Wayne McIntosh appeals a circuit court order declaring his 1977 kidnapping conviction required him to register as a sex offender pursuant to section 23-3-430(C)(15) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2021). McIntosh argues the retroactive application of section 23-3-430(C)(15) violated his rights to equal protection and due process of law. We affirm.

The order on appeal included no rulings regarding the effect of the retroactive application of the statute on McIntosh's constitutional rights, and McIntosh did not move to alter or amend the order for rulings on these issues. Therefore, we hold McIntosh failed to preserve these issues for appellate review and affirm the appealed order pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review."); Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 24, 602 S.E.2d 772, 780 (2004) ("A party must file [a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP] when an issue or argument has been raised, but not ruled on, in order to preserve it for appellate review.").

AFFIRMED.

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

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McIntosh v. State

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Jun 15, 2022
No. 2022-UP-262 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 15, 2022)
Case details for

McIntosh v. State

Case Details

Full title:Billy Wayne McIntosh, Appellant, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Court:Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: Jun 15, 2022

Citations

No. 2022-UP-262 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 15, 2022)