Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2020

State v. Kemp

State v. Kemp
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · Decided May 20, 2020

State v. Kemp

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. Orin Jerrell Kemp, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2018-000161

Appeal From Pickens County Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-146 Submitted May 1, 2020 – Filed May 20, 2020

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Victor R. Seeger, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of Columbia; and Solicitor William Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Orin J. Kemp appeals his guilty plea to petit larceny, breaking and entering a motor vehicle, possession of burglary tools, and financial transaction card theft and sentence of ten years' imprisonment suspended upon the service of five years' imprisonment, and three years' probation. On appeal, he argues the plea court failed to exercise its discretion when it allowed the South Carolina Department of Corrections to calculate his time-served credit. However, after the plea court explained it did not know what time-served credit Kemp was entitled to but it would "let [SCDC] figure it out," Kemp did not object or otherwise ask the plea court to determine his time-served credit. Further, Kemp did not file a motion asking the plea court to reconsider his sentence to include the specific amount of time-served credit he was entitled to on his sentencing sheet.

Accordingly, this issue is not preserved for appellate review. See State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (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]. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal.").

AFFIRMED.1 LOCKEMY, C.J., and GEATHERS and HEWITT, 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.