Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2014

State v. Carter

State v. Carter
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Decided April 30, 2014

State v. Carter

Opinion

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

Appellate Case No. 2011-203566

Appeal From Lancaster County J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-178 Submitted February 1, 2014 – Filed April 30, 2014

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

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.