Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Keesee

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided July 28, 1997No. 2707Published

1ConcurrenceAnderson, Judge

(concurring in Part 1 of the majority opinion and dissenting in Part II of the majority opinion):

Keesee contends his due process rights were violated. This issue was not raised to and ruled on by the trial judge. Accordingly, it is not preserved for appellate review. Hamiter v. Retirement Div. of S.C. Budget, Control Bd., 326 S.C. 93, 484 S.E.2d 586 (1997) (issue raised for first time on appeal is barred from review); State v. Hoffman, 312 S.C. 386, 440 S.E.2d 869 (1994) (issue not properly preserved cannot be raised for first time on appeal); State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 401 S.E.2d 168…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. HoffmanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1994
  2. State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1991
  3. State v. HudginsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1995
  4. Hendrix v. Eastern Distribution, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1995
  5. Hamiter v. Retirement Division of the South Carolina Budget & Control BoardSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1997

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API