State v. Marrett

Opinion

Murphy v. Nationsbank

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

Thom Marrett,        Appellant.

---

Appeal From Spartanburg County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-568
Submitted July 15, 2003 – Filed September 30, 2003

---

AFFIRMED

---

Daniel T. Stacey, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia;  and  Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg; for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Thom Marrett appeals from a circuit court order directing him to pay $3000 in restitution to his former employer, Sod Fathers, Inc.  Marrett contends the circuit court erred in selecting the measure of damages and that the evidence supporting the order for restitution was inadequate.  We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. Section 16-3-1515(B) (2003) (granting the trial judge discretion in requiring documentation of claims for restitution); S.C. Code Ann. Section 17-25-322(B) (2003) (authorizing circuit courts to consider several factors in determining the manner, method, or amount of restitution); Harkins v. Greenville Co., 340 S.C. 606, 620, 533 S.E.2d 886, 893 (2000) (requiring a trial judge to rule on issues to preserve them for appeal); Holy Loch Distributors, Inc. v. Hitchcock, 340 S.C. 20, 24, 531 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2000) (stating that to be considered on appeal an issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court); State v. Cox, 326 S.C. 440, 442, 484 S.E.2d 108, 109 (Ct. App. 1997) (providing that trial courts have broad discretion in fixing the amount of restitution).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., CONNOR and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.

---

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