2006-UP-337 - State v. Watts
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.� IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
Tommy Lemel Watts, Appellant.
Appeal From York County
�John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No.� 2006-UP-337
Submitted September 1, 2006 � Filed September 21, 2006
James W. Boyd, of Rock Hill, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry D. McMaster; Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh; Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott; Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, of Columbia; and Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM:� Appellant Tommy Lemel Watts was tried for and convicted of distribution of crack cocaine and distribution of crack cocaine within the proximity of a public park or playground.� The trial court sentenced Watts to thirty years on the distribution charge and fifteen years on the proximity charge.� Watts appeals, asserting the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for directed verdict.� We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities:� State v. McKnight, 352 S.C. 635, 646, 576 S.E.2d 168, 173 (2003) (holding assertion appellant was entitled to a directed verdict on specific ground raised on appeal was not raised to nor ruled on by the trial court and therefore was not preserved);� State v. Adams, 332 S.C. 139, 144-45, 504 S.E.2d 124, 126-27 (Ct. App. 1998) (finding a directed verdict motion was not preserved for appellate review where the precise argument raised on appeal was not presented to the trial court);� State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 455, 503 S.E.2d 214, 221 (Ct. App. 1998), aff�d on other grounds, 337 S.C. 617, 524 S.E.2d 837 (1999) (�[I]ssues not raised to the trial court in support of [a] directed verdict motion are not preserved for appellate review.�);� State v. Jordan, 255 S.C. 86, 93, 177 S.E.2d 464, 468 (1970) (noting our supreme court �has, in numerous cases, held that [an appellate court] will not consider a question on appeal which was not presented in the court below.�).
HEARN, C.J., and HUFF and STILWELL, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.