State v. Sun

Full title: The State, Respondent, v. Joseph C. Sun, Appellant.

Court: STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Jan 22, 2014

Appellate Case No. 2011-200406 (S.C. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2014)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2011-200406 Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-029

01-22-2014

The State, Respondent, v. Joseph C. Sun, Appellant.

Joseph C. Sun, of Bluffton, pro se. Solicitor Darrell T. Johnson, Jr., of Hardeeville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

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.

Appeal From Jasper County

Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge

AFFIRMED

Joseph C. Sun, of Bluffton, pro se.

Solicitor Darrell T. Johnson, Jr., of Hardeeville, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to whether the circuit court erred in overlooking Joseph C. Sun's response to the magistrates court's return: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) (stating the circuit court must rule on an issue in order for it to be preserved for appellate review); State v. Policao, 402 S.C. 547, 556, 741 S.E.2d 774, 778 (Ct. App. 2013) (recognizing an appellate court will not review arguments raised for the first time on appeal); City of Rock Hill v. Suchenski, 374 S.C. 12, 16, 646 S.E.2d 879, 880 (2007) (holding when the circuit court did not rule on an issue in its final order and the party did not make a post-judgment motion for a ruling, the issue was unpreserved). 2. As to whether the circuit court erred in determining the magistrates court provided Sun sufficient notice of the bench trial: Van Blarcum v. City of N. Myrtle Beach, 337 S.C. 446, 453, 523 S.E.2d 486, 490 (Ct. App. 1999) (stating a reviewing court cannot address an issue on which there is an implicit rather than explicit ruling); State v. Bruce, 402 S.C. 621, 625, 741 S.E.2d 590, 592 (Ct. App. 2013) ("Unless the [circuit] court makes sufficiently specific factual findings on the record, this court has no basis on which to review those findings or the [circuit] court's legal conclusions."); State v. Blackwell-Selim, 392 S.C. 1, 4, 707 S.E.2d 426, 428 (2011) (holding because the circuit court failed to make specific findings of fact to support its ruling, "there was nothing for the [c]ourt of [a]ppeals to review"). AFFIRMED.¹

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

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