State v. Ramey

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Ramey

DecidedMay 27, 2015

Docket2015-UP-267

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Ramey (State v. Ramey) 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. Ramey, (S.C. Ct. App. 2015).

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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Michael Ramey, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002459

Appeal From York County Donald B. Hocker, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-267 Heard April 21, 2015 – Filed May 27, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Laura Ruth Baer, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Michael Ramey appeals the twelve-year sentence resulting from his guilty plea to assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the second degree. Ramey argues the trial court erred in admitting statements during sentencing that were made to a therapist thereby violating section 19-11-95 of the South Carolina Code (2014). We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal."); id. at 142, 587 S.E.2d at 694 ("A party need not use the exact name of a legal doctrine in order to preserve it, but it must be clear that the argument has been presented on that ground."); id. at 142-43, 587 S.E.2d at 694 (finding the reversal of a defendant's conviction by the appellate court erroneous when the basis for reversal was noncompliance with a statute that was never alluded to at trial rendering the issue unpreserved); State v. Burgess, 408 S.C. 421, 435, 759 S.E.2d 407, 414 (2014) (finding any argument regarding a statute unpreserved when the applicability of the statute was not raised to the trial court).

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Michael Ramey, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002459

Appeal From York County Donald B. Hocker, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-267 Heard April 21, 2015 – Filed May 27, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Laura Ruth Baer, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Michael Ramey appeals the twelve-year sentence resulting from his guilty plea to assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the second degree. Ramey argues the trial court erred in admitting statements during sentencing that were made to a therapist thereby violating section 19-11-95 of the South Carolina Code (2014). We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal."); id. at 142, 587 S.E.2d at 694 ("A party need not use the exact name of a legal doctrine in order to preserve it, but it must be clear that the argument has been presented on that ground."); id. at 142-43, 587 S.E.2d at 694 (finding the reversal of a defendant's conviction by the appellate court erroneous when the basis for reversal was noncompliance with a statute that was never alluded to at trial rendering the issue unpreserved); State v. Burgess, 408 S.C. 421, 435, 759 S.E.2d 407, 414 (2014) (finding any argument regarding a statute unpreserved when the applicability of the statute was not raised to the trial court).

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Ramey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ramey-scctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack