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 v. Respondent, v. Samuel Lee Jackson, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2020-000949

Appeal From Lexington County Walton J. McLeod, IV, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-206 Submitted April 1, 2022 – Filed May 18, 2022

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Ambree Michele Muller, of Columbia; and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of Lexington, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Samuel Lee Jackson appeals his convictions for first-degree domestic violence, first-degree harassment, and tampering with or destroying an electronic monitor and sentence of four years' imprisonment. On appeal, Jackson argues the plea court erred by denying his sentence reconsideration motion, which in effect denied him the opportunity to have the victim—his wife, Carol Littleton—appear and testify directly to the plea court on his behalf. Because the motion did not include a request that the plea court hold a hearing to allow Littleton to testify on Jackson's behalf, we find this issue not preserved for appellate review. Accordingly, 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, 693-94 (2003) (providing that if an issue was not raised and ruled upon below, it will not be considered for the first time on appeal); id. at 142, 587 S.E.2d at 694 ("[I]it must be clear that the argument has been presented [to the sentencing court] on that ground.").

AFFIRMED.1 WILLIAMS, C.J., and KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., concur.

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