Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and Assistant Attorney General Susannah Rawl Cole. all of Columbia, for Respondent. Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent.

Cory Nettles Allen appeals his murder conviction, arguing the trial court erred in refusing to redact a portion of a 911 call.

Richard B. Fennell, of James McElroy & Diehl, of Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Charles S. Bradford, of Charles S. Bradford, P.A., of York, for Appellant. William Mark White and Jeremy Daniel Melville, both of Spencer & Spencer, PA, of Rock Hill, for Respondent.

In this action Lucille Ray asserts the circuit court erred in: (1) granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Rock Hill as to her claims for inverse condemnation and injunctive relief; (2) excluding witness testimony regarding abatability; and (3) granting a directed verdict in favor of the City as to her claim for trespass.

Carl H. Jacobson, of Uricchio Howe Krell Jacobson Toporek Theos & Keith, PA, of Charleston, for Appellant. John Gabriel Coggiola, of Willson Jones Carter & Baxley, P.A., of Columbia, for Respondents.

David Lemon (Claimant) appeals the order of the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission), arguing it erred by offsetting his award of permanent and total disability against awards he had received for previous, unrelated claims.

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and Assistant Attorney General Susannah Rawl Cole, all of Columbia, for Respondent. Solicitor David Matthew Stumbo, of Greenwood, for Respondent.

Darrell Erwin Raines, Jr. appeals his conviction of murder, arguing the trial court erred in admitting (1) an unredacted videotape of his interrogation during which investigators repeatedly called him a liar and (2) text messages in violation of the rule against the admission of hearsay.

David Cochran Dick, Jr., of Law Office of David C. Dick, of Charleston, for Appellants. Frank M. Cisa of The Law Firm of Cisa & Dodds, LLP, of Mt. Pleasant, for Respondent.

In this appeal from an order of the circuit court, Linda and Derick Weddle (collectively, the Weddles) argue the circuit court erred in (1) failing to dismiss Carolina Comfort Specialists, LLC's (Carolina Comfort) claim for a mechanic's lien for failing to comply with the statutory requirements, (2) finding Linda Weddle was a party to the underlying contract, (3) retroactively qualifying Gene Pardee as an expert witness, and (4) finding the Weddles failed to properly plead a breach of contract allegation for failure to provide an extended warranty.

A. Bright Ariail, of Law Office of A. Bright Ariail, LLC, of Charleston, for Appellants. Andrew K. Epting, Jr., of Andrew K. Epting, Jr., LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent. Michelle Nicole Endemann of Clarkson, Walsh & Coulter, P.A., of Mt. Pleasant, for Respondent. Jaan G. Rannik, of Charleston, for Respondent.

Restoration Specialists, LLC and its owners, Ruben Mark Ward and Lynnette Pennington Ward, appeal a master-in-equity's order denying their motion for relief from an entry of default and motion to stay and compel arbitration.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson of Columbia SC for Appellant The State, Assistant Senior Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr. of Columbia SC for Appellant The State, Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett of Columbia SC for Respondent Jamie Lee Simpson

The State appeals Jamie Lee Simpson's home detention sentence for the violent crime of second degree sexual exploitation of a minor, arguing the circuit court erred in interpreting section 24-13-1530 of the South Carolina Code when the plain language of the statute states it only applies to "low risk, nonviolent adult and juvenile offenders."

Kenneth M. Mathews, of Columbia, for Appellant. Katherine Carruth Goode, of Winnsboro, for Appellant. Harry C. Wilson, Jr. of Lee, Erter, Wilson, Holler & Smith, LLC, of Sumter, for Respondent.

Samuel Tomlinson appeals from a child custody order, arguing the family court erred in (1) ordering a week-to-week alternating custody arrangement, (2) failing to make a finding as to mother's child support arrearage and failing to offset, and (3) abusing its discretion in awarding mother child support and attorney's fees.

Nicolas Lee Haigler, of Robinson Gray Stepp & Laffitte, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellants. David Newton Truitt of Truitt Law Firm, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Prysmian Power Cables & Systems, USA and Sentry Insurance Company (collectively Prysmian) appeal a decision of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission Appellate Panel (the Appellate Panel) declining to address injuries asserted in a Form 50 filed by the claimant, James A. Ashford, because they were not properly before the Appellate Panel. Prysmian argues the Appellate Panel's findings were in error and violate its due process rights.

Harold Alan Oberman, of Oberman & Oberman, of Charleston, for Appellant. Donald Bruce Clark, of Donald B. Clark, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent. Mary Kathryn Schmutz, of Schmutz & Schmutz, of Charleston, for Respondent.

Denise May (Wife) appeals the family court's order granting Keith May's (Husband's) motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Wife argues the family court erred in finding a mistake existed in Husband's and Wife's court-approved divorce settlement agreement and in considering information relating to the mediation between the parties.

Gerald F. Smith of Smith Law Office, of Columbia, for Appellant. Adam Tremaine Silvernail of Law Office. of Adam T. Silvernail, of Columbia, for Appellant. Eugene Hamilton Matthews, of Richardson Plowden & Robinson, PA, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Marion E. Crocker, Jr. appeals a circuit court order granting summary judgment to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control on his discrimination claim brought under South Carolina Human Affairs Law. On appeal, Crocker argues the circuit court erred in finding (1) the statute of limitations in section 1-13-90(d)(6) of the South Carolina Code applied to his claim, (2) section 1-13-90(c) of the South Carolina Code did not create a private right of action, and (3) he was not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.

Desa Ballard and Harvey M. Watson, III, both of Ballard & Watson, Attorneys at Law, of West Columbia, for Appellants. Theodore Harry Huge of Harris & Huge, LLC, of Charleston, for Appellants. William Stephen Harris of Harris & Huge, LLC, of Johns Island, for Appellants. John E. Schmidt, III, of Schmidt & Copeland, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.

In this action under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 41-10-10 to -110, Appellants, Worldwide Apparel LLC and Drew Ciccarelli, challenge an order granting summary judgment to Respondent Shane Gould. Appellants argue (1) summary judgment was improper because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the operative terms of employment; (2) the Act does not provide for employee recovery for mere failure to provide written notice of certain terms of employment; (3) the evidence supporting Appellants' equitable defenses precluded summary judgment; and (4) the award of treble damages and attorney's fees was improper because there existed a bona fide dispute as to the amount of wages due.

John E. Parker and William Franklin Barnes, III, of Peters Murdaugh Parker Eltzroth & Detrick, PA, of Hampton, for Appellant. Wallace K. Lightsey and Meliah Bowers Jefferson, both of Wyche, PA, of Greenville, for Respondent.

In this defamation case, Appellants appeal the circuit court's order granting summary judgment. Appellants argue the circuit court erred in holding (1) the statements of facts in the articles are protected by the fair report privilege, (2) the opinions expressed in the articles are not actionable, (3) the appellants have not shown proof of injury to reputation, (4) the alleged defamatory statements were not 'of and concerning' the students, and (5) that Coach Walpole has not shown that Jones Street Publisher acted with actual malice.

Brett Lamb Stevens, of Stevens Law, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellant. Bryan D. Caskey, of Caskey & Imgrund, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellant. Kenneth M. Mathews, of Columbia, for Respondent. Katherine Carruth Goode, of Winnsboro, for Respondent. Shannon Matthews Chandler, of Columbia, Guardian ad Litem.

Leslie Hughey (Mother) appeals the family court's order changing custody of her and Arthur Eleazer's (Father) two minor children from Mother to Father. Mother argues (1) the facts of this case did not constitute a substantial change of circumstances warranting a change of custody, (2) even if there was a substantial change of circumstances, a change of custody was not in the children's best interests, (3) the family court's conclusion that a change of custody was warranted is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and (4) no evidence was presented to support a change in custody of the parties' daughter.

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant. Legal Counsel Octavia Yvonne Wright, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Shawn Allen Mitchell appeals the circuit court order subjecting him to lifetime electronic monitoring three years after he pled guilty to second offense failure to register as a sex offender. On appeal, Mitchell argues (1) the State should have filed a post trial motion for reconsideration after his guilty plea to second offense failure to register as a sex offender if it was dissatisfied with his sentence and wanted him to be electronically monitored, and (2) ordering electronic monitoring violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process because the circuit court did not perform an individualized assessment of his risk to reoffend.

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, of Columbia, for Respondent. Solicitor Randy E. Newman, Jr., of Lancaster, for Respondent.

In this criminal appeal, Robert Isaiah Graham appeals his sentence of forty-five years' imprisonment imposed by the circuit court after Graham pled guilty to murder. On appeal, Graham argues the sentence imposed by the circuit court constitutes a de facto life without parole sentence on a juvenile that violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Appellate Defender Victor R. Seeger, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and Assistant Attorney General Sherrie Butterbaugh, all of Columbia, for Respondent. Solicitor William Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, for Respondent.

In this criminal matter, Michael Jay Finley appeals the circuit court's denial of his motion for resentencing arguing the circuit court erred in denying his motion for resentencing because (1) The Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment provides additional protections for juvenile offenders; (2) his mandatory life sentence is disproportionate because it treats juveniles like adults; (3) he has not been afforded a meaningful opportunity for release.

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and Assistant Attorney General Sherrie Butterbaugh, all of Columbia, for Respondent. Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

In this criminal matter, Anthony M. Enriquez appeals the circuit court's denial of his motion for resentencing pursuant toAiken v. Byars, 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (2014), arguing the circuit court erred in denying his motion for resentencing because (1) the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment provides additional protections for juvenile offenders; (2) his mandatory sentence of life with the possibility of parole treated all adults and juveniles the same; and (3) the parole process in South Carolina does not provide a meaningful opportunity for release such that it is not an adequate substitute for individualized resentencing.