State v. Medina

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Medina

DecidedMarch 5, 2009

Docket2009-UP-124

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Medina (State v. Medina) 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

State v. Medina, (S.C. Ct. App. 2009).

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Santos Medina, Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County
William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-124
Submitted March 2, 2009 Filed March 5, 2009

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Santos Medina appeals his conviction and sentence for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN), arguing the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the required mental state for ABHAN. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Conyers, 326 S.C. 263, 266, 487 S.E.2d 181, 183 (1997) (explaining an issue must be raised and ruled upon in the trial court in order to be preserved for appellate review); State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 455, 503 S.E.2d 214, 221 (Ct. App. 1998) (stating a party cannot argue one ground at trial and then an alternative ground on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, 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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Santos Medina, Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County
William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-124
Submitted March 2, 2009 Filed March 5, 2009

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Santos Medina appeals his conviction and sentence for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN), arguing the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the required mental state for ABHAN. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Conyers, 326 S.C. 263, 266, 487 S.E.2d 181, 183 (1997) (explaining an issue must be raised and ruled upon in the trial court in order to be preserved for appellate review); State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 455, 503 S.E.2d 214, 221 (Ct. App. 1998) (stating a party cannot argue one ground at trial and then an alternative ground on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Medina, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-medina-scctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack