Berry v. Stokes Import

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

Hoang Berry, Appellant,

v.

Stokes Import Collision Center, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2012-207187

Appeal From Charleston County Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-007 Submitted December 3, 2012 – Filed January 9, 2013

AFFIRMED

Jason G. Soper, of Soper Law Firm, LLC, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Harry Clayton Walker, Jr. and Robert Lawrence Reibold, of Walker & Reibold, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to Berry's argument concerning the ineffectiveness of the court provided interpreter during trial: Kleckley v. Nw. Nat'l Cas. Co., 338 S.C. 131, 138, 526 S.E.2d 218, 221 (2000) (noting an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by both the trial court and an intermediate appellate court to be properly preserved for review).

2. As to Berry's argument concerning the circuit court's failure to provide her an interpreter during her appeal: Herron v. Century BMW, 395 S.C. 461, 465, 719 S.E.2d 640, 642 (2011) (noting an issue that is raised for the first time on appeal is not preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and WILLIAMS and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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