Michael Knight v. SCMV

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: November 19, 2009
• Docket: 2009-UP-523
• Status: Unpublished

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

Michael Bradley Morris Knight, Appellant

v.

South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.

---

Appeal From Richland County
 Paige J. Gossett, Administrative Law Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-523
Submitted November 2, 2009 – Filed November 19, 2009

---

AFFIRMED

---

Calvin Andrew Carroll, of North Charleston and Desa Ballard and P. Christopher Smith, Jr., both of West Columbia, for Appellant.

Frank L. Valenta, Jr., Phillip S. Porter, and Linda Annette Grice, all of Blythewood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Michael Bradley Morris Knight was arrested for driving under the influence.  He refused to submit to a breathalyzer test.  As a result, the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (the Department) suspended Knight's driving privileges. Upon Knight's request, the Department held an administrative hearing for the purpose of determining whether the Department properly suspended Knight's license because he refused to submit to a breathalyzer test.  The hearing officer sustained the decision to suspend Knight's driver's license, and the Administrative Law Court (ALC) affirmed.  On appeal, Knight contends the ALC erred in concluding the traffic stop was lawful.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 210(h), SCACR (explaining ordinarily no point will be considered which does not appear in the record on appeal); Johnson v. S.C. Dep't of Prob., Parole, and Pardon Servs., 372 S.C. 279, 283, 641 S.E.2d 895, 897 (2007) ("South Carolina courts have traditionally held the appealing party accountable for failing to present the court with an adequate record for review."); Helms Realty, Inc. v. Gibson-Wall Co., 363 S.C. 334, 340, 611 S.E.2d 485, 488 (2005) (explaining the appellant has the burden of presenting a sufficient record to allow appellate review); Harkins v. Greenville County, 340 S.C. 606, 616, 533 S.E.2d 886, 891 (2000) (holding this court may affirm the trial court on any issue because the appellant failed to meet its burden of presenting an adequate record on appeal). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

---

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