Champion v. South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Champion v. South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles

DecidedJanuary 13, 2016

Docket2016-UP-009

StatusUnpublished

This text of Champion v. South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (Champion v. South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles) 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

Champion v. South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, (S.C. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

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

Spring Champion, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000014

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court S. Phillip Lenski, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-009 Submitted November 1, 2015 – Filed January 13, 2016

AFFIRMED

James Ross Snell, Jr. and Vicki D. Koutsogiannis, both of the Law Office Of James R. Snell, Jr., LLC, of Lexington, for Appellant.

General Counsel Frank L. Valenta, Jr. and Deputy General Counsel Philip S. Porter, both of the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, of Blythewood, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Spring Champion appeals the administrative law court's decision affirming her designation as a habitual traffic offender. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Burton, 356 S.C. 259, 265 n.5, 589 S.E.2d 6, 9 n.5 (2003) ("A pro se litigant who knowingly elects to represent himself assumes full responsibility for complying with the substantive and procedural requirements of the law."); Pye v. Estate of Fox, 369 S.C. 555, 566, 633 S.E.2d 505, 510 (2006) ("It is well settled that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved."); Lapp v. S.C. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 387 S.C. 500, 507, 692 S.E.2d 565, 569 (Ct. App. 2010) ("To be preserved for appellate review, an issue must have been: (1) raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, (2) raised by the appellant, (3) raised in a timely manner, and (4) raised to the trial court with sufficient specificity.").

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, 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

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

Spring Champion, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000014

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court S. Phillip Lenski, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-009 Submitted November 1, 2015 – Filed January 13, 2016

AFFIRMED

James Ross Snell, Jr. and Vicki D. Koutsogiannis, both of the Law Office Of James R. Snell, Jr., LLC, of Lexington, for Appellant.

General Counsel Frank L. Valenta, Jr. and Deputy General Counsel Philip S. Porter, both of the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, of Blythewood, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Spring Champion appeals the administrative law court's decision affirming her designation as a habitual traffic offender. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Burton, 356 S.C. 259, 265 n.5, 589 S.E.2d 6, 9 n.5 (2003) ("A pro se litigant who knowingly elects to represent himself assumes full responsibility for complying with the substantive and procedural requirements of the law."); Pye v. Estate of Fox, 369 S.C. 555, 566, 633 S.E.2d 505, 510 (2006) ("It is well settled that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved."); Lapp v. S.C. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 387 S.C. 500, 507, 692 S.E.2d 565, 569 (Ct. App. 2010) ("To be preserved for appellate review, an issue must have been: (1) raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, (2) raised by the appellant, (3) raised in a timely manner, and (4) raised to the trial court with sufficient specificity.").

AFFIRMED.1

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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Champion v. South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/champion-v-south-carolina-department-of-motor-vehicles-scctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack