State v. Driesen

• Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Decided: December 19, 2011
• Docket: 2011-MO-037
• Status: Unpublished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 Supreme Court

---

The State, Appellant/Respondent,

v.

Guido Driesen, Respondent/Appellant.

---

Appeal From Greenville County
 John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge

---

Memorandum Opinion No. 2011-MO-037
Heard December 1, 2011 – Filed December 19, 2011  

---

AFFIRMED

---

Assistant Solicitor C. Denton Matthews and Katryna B. Salisbury, of Greenville, for Appellant-Respondent.

Billy J. Garrett, Jr. and Carson McCurry Henderson, both of Greenwood, Charles M. Groves, of Chapman, Harter & Groves, of Greenville, and Desa Ballard and Stephanie Weissenstein, both of Ballard Watson Weissenstein, of West Columbia, for Respondent-Appellant.

---

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to the following authorities: State v. Galloway, 305 S.C. 258, 263, 407 S.E.2d 662, 665 (Ct. App. 1991) (“[T]he unappealed alternative ruling . . . constitutes an independent ground for upholding the judgment.”); Elam v. South Carolina Department of Transportation, 361 S.C. 9, 23, 602 S.E.2d 772, 779-80 (2004) (“Issues and arguments are preserved for appellate review only when they are raised to and ruled on by the lower court.”); State v. Baum, 355 S.C. 209, 584 S.E.2d 419 (Ct. App. 2004) (“Generally, jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn and impaneled, unless the defendant consents to the jury’s discharge before it reaches a verdict or legal necessity mandates the jury’s discharge.”). 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.