State v. Stephenson

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals The State, Respondent, v. Barrett Stephenson, Appellant. Appeal From Aiken County James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-038 Submitted November 20, 2002 – Filed January 15, 2003 AFFIRMED Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda H. Haile, of Columbia, for appellant. Deputy Director for Legal Services Teresa A. Knox, Legal Counsel Tommy Evans, Jr., and Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, all of Columbia, for respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 220(c), SCACR (stating an appellate court may affirm a trial court’s decision based on any reason appearing in the record on appeal); State v. Saltz, 346 S.C. 114, 126, 551 S.E.2d 240, 247 (2001) (holding an appellate court may affirm a trial court’s decision based on any reason appearing in the record on appeal); State v. Sampson, 317 S.C. 423, 427, 454 S.E.2d 721, 723 (1995) (holding an unappealed ruling is the law of the case and, standing alone, may be a sufficient basis to affirm a defendant’s conviction); see also State v. Hughes, 336 S.C. 585, 591, 521 S.E.2d 500, 503 (1999) (holding contemporaneous objection and final ruling by trial judge are required to preserve error for appellate review); Townsend v. City of Dillon, 326 S.C. 244, 247, 586 S.E.2d 95, 97 (1997) (holding that issue not ruled on by the trial judge is not preserved for appellate review); Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (holding that issue not explicitly ruled on by the trial judge and not raised in a Rule 59(e) motion was not preserved for appellate review). AFFIRMED. [1] CONNOR, STILWELL, and HOWARD, JJ., concur. [1] Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.