State v. Priester

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: January 25, 2012
• Docket: 2012-UP-046
• Status: Unpublished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.

Walter Calvin Priester, II, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Richland County
 J. Michelle Childs, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-046
Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed January 25, 2012   

---

AFFIRMED

---

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Solicitor Daniel E. Johnson, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Walter Calvin Priester, II, appeals his indecent exposure conviction, arguing the trial court erred in qualifying the State's expert witness.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Lopez, 352 S.C. 373, 378, 574 S.E.2d 210, 213 (Ct. App. 2002) (finding an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court in order to be considered on appeal); State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5, 377 S.E.2d 581, 584 (1989) (holding a party cannot argue one ground at trial and then an alternative ground on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

---

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