State v. Jenkinson

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, Appellant,

v.

Blake Thomas Jenkinson, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000252

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-432 Submitted September 1, 2016 – Filed October 19, 2016

AFFIRMED

Solicitor Daniel Edward Johnson and Assistant Solicitor Kristen Ann Bales, both of Columbia, for Appellant.

S. Jahue Moore Jr., of Moore Taylor Law Firm, P.A., of West Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Branham, 392 S.C. 225, 228, 708 S.E.2d 806, 808 (Ct. App. 2011) ("In a criminal appeal from the magistrate's court, the circuit court does not review the matter de novo."); id. ("The appeal must be heard by the circuit court

upon the grounds of exceptions made and the record on appeal, without the examination of witnesses."); id. ("The appellate court's review in criminal cases is limited to correcting the order of the circuit court for errors of law."); State v. Oxner, 391 S.C. 132, 134, 705 S.E.2d 51, 51 (2011) ("[Section 18–3–10 of the South Carolina Code (2014)] . . . provides that criminal appeals from magistrate's court are made to the Court of Common Pleas."); id. at 134, 705 S.E.2d at 51-52 ("Further, under the [South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure], these appellate 'proceedings in the circuit court shall be in accordance with [the SCRCP].'" (alteration in original) (quoting Rule 74, SCRCP)); Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 24, 602 S.E.2d 772, 780 (2004) ("A party must file [a Rule 59(e), SCRCP] motion when an issue or argument has been raised, but not ruled on, in order to preserve it for appellate review."); Taylor v. Taylor, 294 S.C. 296, 299, 363 S.E.2d 909, 911 (Ct. App. 1987) ("The burden is on the appellant to furnish a sufficient record on appeal from which this court can make an intelligent review.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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