State v. Jenkins

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 

State of South Carolina, Respondent,

v.

Regina Lashawn Jenkins, Defendant,

Lisa M. Riddle representing

A-1 Bonding & Enterprises, Inc., and American Surety Company, Appellants.

Appeal From Aiken County
Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-542 
Submitted November 1, 2011 Filed December 5, 2011

AFFIRMED

 

Bejamin A. Stitely, of Lexington, for Appellants.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General David Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: A-1 Bonding & Enterprises, Inc. and American Surety Company, represented by Lisa M. Riddle, appeal the circuit court's order denying remittance of any portion of their bond upon a finding Regina Lashawn Jenkins failed to appear in court when summoned.  A-1 Bonding and American Surety argue the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to consider the factors set forth in Ex parte Polk, 354 S.C. 8, 579 S.E.2d 329 (Ct. App. 2003).  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 circuit 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); Duncan v. CRS Sirrine Eng'rs, Inc., 337 S.C. 537, 543-44, 524 S.E.2d 115, 119 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding a party's arguments were not preserved for appeal because the party did not raise the issue to the circuit court, the circuit court did not rule on the issue, and the party failed to file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion); Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (finding an issue not preserved when the circuit court did not explicitly rule on a question and the appellant failed to make a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion to alter or amend the judgment on that ground).

AFFIRMED.

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

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