McIntosh v. State

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 Billy Wayne McIntosh, Appellant, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2020-000741 Appeal From Lexington County Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-262 Submitted May 1, 2022 – Filed June 15, 2022 AFFIRMED Billy Wayne McIntosh, pro se. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General W. Jeffrey Young, Assistant Attorney General Harley Littleton Kirkland, Assistant Attorney General Leon David Leggett, III, all of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Billy Wayne McIntosh appeals a circuit court order declaring his 1977 kidnapping conviction required him to register as a sex offender pursuant to section 23-3-430(C)(15) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2021). McIntosh argues the retroactive application of section 23-3-430(C)(15) violated his rights to equal protection and due process of law. We affirm. The order on appeal included no rulings regarding the effect of the retroactive application of the statute on McIntosh's constitutional rights, and McIntosh did not move to alter or amend the order for rulings on these issues. Therefore, we hold McIntosh failed to preserve these issues for appellate review and affirm the appealed order 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 trial judge to be preserved for appellate review."); Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 24, 602 S.E.2d 772, 780 (2004) ("A party must file [a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP] when an issue or argument has been raised, but not ruled on, in order to preserve it for appellate review."). AFFIRMED.1 THOMAS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., 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.