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. Willie Ritter, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-210570

Appeal From Richland County Paul M. Burch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-232 Submitted May 1, 2014 – Filed June 18, 2014

AFFIRMED

William Bertram Von Herrmann, of Von Herrmann Law Firm, of Conway, for Appellant.

Assistant Deputy Attorney General David A. Spencer, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 29(a), SCRCrimP ("Except for motions for new trials based on after-discovered evidence, post-trial motions shall be made within ten (10) days after the imposition of the sentence."); State v. Warren, 392 S.C. 235, 240, 708 S.E.2d 234, 236 (Ct. App. 2011) (holding the trial court only had authority to consider the issue raised in a timely filed post-trial motion and lacked authority to consider the issue in a motion to amend filed more than three years later).

AFFIRMED.1 HUFF, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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