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.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
v.
Carl Craine, Appellant.
Appeal From Pickens County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No.� 2010-UP-499�
Heard September 14, 2010 � Filed November
10, 2010
AFFIRMED
Deputy Chief Attorney Wanda H. Carter, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport and Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Carl Craine appeals his first-degree burglary conviction and twenty-five year sentence.� Craine's indictment for first-degree burglary was based on an allegation that he entered or remained in the dwelling during the nighttime.� However, before the jury was sworn, the State requested to amend Craine's first-degree burglary indictment to include two or more prior burglary convictions as an additional aggravating circumstance.� Craine opposed the State's motion to amend the indictment, arguing the proposed amendment prejudiced him because the prior convictions were for burglary second and occurred ten years prior to the current charge.� On appeal, Craine argues the trial court erred in allowing the State to amend its first-burglary indictment because it changed the nature of the offense by alleging two or more prior burglaries as an aggravating circumstance when the original indictment listed the nighttime element as the aggravating circumstance.� We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:� State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) (holding an issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review, and issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal); State v. Benton, 338 S.C. 151, 157, 526 S.E.2d 228, 231 (2000) (finding an issue is not preserved if the defendant argues one ground for objection at trial and a different ground on appeal).
AFFIRMED.
SHORT, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.