Cantrell v. SCDPS

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Cantrell v. SCDPS

DecidedJanuary 13, 2005

Docket2005-UP-023

StatusUnpublished

This text of Cantrell v. SCDPS (Cantrell v. SCDPS) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cantrell v. SCDPS, (S.C. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Benjamin K. Cantrell, Appellant,

v.

SC Department of Public Safety, Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County
Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-023
Submitted November 1, 2004 Filed January 13, 2005

AFFIRMED

Benjamin K. Cantrell, of Greer, for Appellant.

Senior Assistant General Counsel Patrick M. Teague, of Blythewood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Benjamin Cantrell appeals the circuit courts order affirming the administrative hearing officers decision that his arrest for driving under the influence was lawful. We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:

As to the lawfulness of Cantrells arrest in a parking garage: S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2930 (Supp. 2003) (It is unlawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle within this State while: (1) under the influence of alcohol to the extent that the persons faculties to drive are materially and appreciably impaired . . . .) (emphasis added); State v. Allen, 314 S.C. 539, 540, 431 S.E.2d 563, 564 (1993) (holding the application of code section 56-5-2930 is not limited to state highways but applies anywhere within our State boundaries.).

As to an alleged violation of the videotaping requirement pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. section 56-5-2953 (Supp. 2003), the absence of counsel for the State at the appellate hearing before the circuit court, and the circuit courts alleged failure to consider error by the administrative hearing officer and the arresting officer: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review.); Murphy v. Hagan, 275 S.C. 334, 339, 271 S.E.2d 311, 313 (1980) (holding an appellate court will not hear issues not raised or preserved in a lower court proceeding).

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, STILWELL, and SHORT, JJ., concur.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Benjamin K. Cantrell, Appellant,

v.

SC Department of Public Safety, Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County
Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-023
Submitted November 1, 2004 Filed January 13, 2005

AFFIRMED

Benjamin K. Cantrell, of Greer, for Appellant.

Senior Assistant General Counsel Patrick M. Teague, of Blythewood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Benjamin Cantrell appeals the circuit courts order affirming the administrative hearing officers decision that his arrest for driving under the influence was lawful. We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:

As to the lawfulness of Cantrells arrest in a parking garage: S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2930 (Supp. 2003) (It is unlawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle within this State while: (1) under the influence of alcohol to the extent that the persons faculties to drive are materially and appreciably impaired . . . .) (emphasis added); State v. Allen, 314 S.C. 539, 540, 431 S.E.2d 563, 564 (1993) (holding the application of code section 56-5-2930 is not limited to state highways but applies anywhere within our State boundaries.).

As to an alleged violation of the videotaping requirement pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. section 56-5-2953 (Supp. 2003), the absence of counsel for the State at the appellate hearing before the circuit court, and the circuit courts alleged failure to consider error by the administrative hearing officer and the arresting officer: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review.); Murphy v. Hagan, 275 S.C. 334, 339, 271 S.E.2d 311, 313 (1980) (holding an appellate court will not hear issues not raised or preserved in a lower court proceeding).

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, STILWELL, and SHORT, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cantrell v. SCDPS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cantrell-v-scdps-scctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack