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.

Richard David Ratliff, Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County
R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-033
Submitted January 3, 2012 � Filed January 25, 2012���

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant� Attorney General William Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Richard David Ratliff appeals his convictions for three counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor, two counts of lewd act with a minor, and three counts of criminal solicitation of a minor.� Ratliff argues the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant and prejudicial character evidence.� We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: �State v. Haselden, 353 S.C. 190, 196, 577 S.E.2d 445, 448 (2003) (holding an issue was not preserved for review when the party argued one ground at trial and another on appeal); Wierszewski v. Tokarick, 308 S.C. 441, 444 n.2, 418 S.E.2d 557, 559 n.2 (Ct. App. 1992) ("An issue is not preserved for review merely because the trial court mentions it.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.