State v. Ravenell

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Ravenell

DecidedMarch 6, 2019

Docket2019-UP-102

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Ravenell (State v. Ravenell) 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. Ravenell, (S.C. Ct. App. 2019).

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.

Devar Tremaine Ravenell, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-001704

Appeal From Berkeley County Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-102 Submitted February 1, 2019 – Filed March 6, 2019

AFFIRMED

Eric B. Laquiere, of Laquiere Law Firm, LLC, of Johns Island, for Appellant.

Matthew C. Buchanan, of the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed 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 [court]. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal."); State v. Geer, 391 S.C. 179, 193, 705 S.E.2d 441, 448 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[A]n issue may not be raised for the first time in a post-trial motion." (quoting S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007))); State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 411-12, 401 S.E.2d 168, 169 (1991) (finding an issue unpreserved because the appellant failed to object at a sentencing hearing); Fleming v. State, 399 S.C. 380, 381, 731 S.E.2d 889, 889 (2012) (per curiam) (finding no issues were preserved for appellate review because the appellant made no objections during a probation revocation hearing); State v. Head, 330 S.C. 79, 87, 498 S.E.2d 389, 393 (Ct. App. 1997) ("This court cannot address unpreserved errors.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, 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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Devar Tremaine Ravenell, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-001704

Appeal From Berkeley County Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-102 Submitted February 1, 2019 – Filed March 6, 2019

AFFIRMED

Eric B. Laquiere, of Laquiere Law Firm, LLC, of Johns Island, for Appellant.

Matthew C. Buchanan, of the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed 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 [court]. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal."); State v. Geer, 391 S.C. 179, 193, 705 S.E.2d 441, 448 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[A]n issue may not be raised for the first time in a post-trial motion." (quoting S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007))); State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 411-12, 401 S.E.2d 168, 169 (1991) (finding an issue unpreserved because the appellant failed to object at a sentencing hearing); Fleming v. State, 399 S.C. 380, 381, 731 S.E.2d 889, 889 (2012) (per curiam) (finding no issues were preserved for appellate review because the appellant made no objections during a probation revocation hearing); State v. Head, 330 S.C. 79, 87, 498 S.E.2d 389, 393 (Ct. App. 1997) ("This court cannot address unpreserved errors.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Ravenell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ravenell-scctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack