State v. Matheny

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: March 11, 2015
• Docket: 2015-UP-130
• Status: Unpublished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

The State, Respondent,

v.

Randall Dean Matheny, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-001924

Appeal From Spartanburg County Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-130 Submitted January 1, 2015 – Filed March 11, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Christina Catoe Bigelow, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Joe Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Gilmore, 396 S.C. 72, 77, 719 S.E.2d 688, 690 (Ct. App. 2011) ("[I]n the context of a trial court's decision not to charge a requested lesser- included offense, we review the trial court's decision de novo."); Sheppard v. State, 357 S.C. 646, 665, 594 S.E.2d 462, 472 (2004) ("In general, the trial court is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina."); State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262, 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993) ("The law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial."); State v. Geiger, 370 S.C. 600, 607, 635 S.E.2d 669, 673 (Ct. App. 2006) ("The trial court should refuse to charge the lesser[-]included offense when there has been no evidence tending to show the defendant may have committed solely the lesser offense."); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court]."); State v. Brockmeyer, 406 S.C. 324, 355, 751 S.E.2d 645, 661 (2013) ("[A] party may not argue one ground at trial and another on appeal . . . .").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, SHORT, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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