Court Opinion

ID: 9608230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:07:51.166494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:47.360080
License: Public Domain

Justice PLEICONES.
I agree that the issue whether the statute is void for vagueness is preserved for our review since that is what the trial judge believed was being argued, and that is what he ruled upon. Moreover, I agree that appellant lacks standing to challenge the statute because his conduct clearly falls within its terms. In re Amir X.S., 371 S.C. 380, 639 S.E.2d 144 (2006). I would end the analysis here. Id. Finally, it is well-settled that an issue, unless a claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, cannot be raised for the first time at oral argument. S.C. Dep’t of Soc. Serv. v. Basnight, 346 S.C. 241, 551 S.E.2d 274 (Ct.App.2001). I therefore do not join the remainder of the majority’s discussion.
I concur in the decision to affirm appellant’s appeal.