Court Opinion

ID: 9616047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:43:15.2246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:06.830686
License: Public Domain

*662Justice PLEICONES
concurring.
I concur in the majority’s decision to reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision. I write separately, however, because in my opinion neither the Rule 5 issue nor the Brady issue was preserved for appeal. The circuit court did not rule on either claim, instead directing Respondent to file a motion under S.C.Code Ann. § 24-21-290 (Supp.2005).11 Respondent neither objected to this ruling nor filed a motion pursuant to the statute. Accordingly, no issue involving Respondent’s discovery request was preserved for appellate review, and the Court of Appeals erred in addressing the merits of Respondent’s appeal. E.g., State v. Burton, 356 S.C. 259, 589 S.E.2d 6 (2003). I would therefore reverse the Court of Appeals, but would not reach the substantive issues.

. Like the trial judge, I believe that discovery in probation revocation proceedings is governed, at least in the first instance, by the statute.