Primus v. SCDC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 James Anthony Primus, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2020-000727 Appeal From The Administrative Law Court Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-230 Submitted May 1, 2022 – Filed June 1, 2022 AFFIRMED James Anthony Primus, pro se. Imani Diane Byas, of South Carolina Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: James Anthony Primus appeals the Administrative Law Court (ALC's) order dismissing his appeal as moot. On appeal to this court, Primus argues the ALC improperly dismissed his appeal as moot because a miscalculation of time-served credit in his possession of crack cocaine sentence affected the start date of his sentences for his remaining convictions. Because Primus did not make this specific argument to the ALC, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the [ALC] to be preserved for appellate review."); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal."). AFFIRMED.1 GEATHERS and HILL, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur. 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.