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.
David M. Rocquemore, Appellant.
Appeal From Charleston County
Daniel F. Pieper, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-331
Heard April 14, 2010 – Filed June 28, 2010
AFFIRMED
Andrew John Savage III, of Charleston, and Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz III, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.
2. The trial court did not err in refusing to afford retroactive effect to the Act. See Graham v. Dorchester County Sch. Dist., 339 S.C. 121, 124, 528 S.E.2d 80, 82 (Ct. App. 2000) (finding as a general rule, statutes are presumed to be prospective rather than retrospective in nature unless retroactivity is expressly stated); State v. Bolin, 381 S.C. 557, 562, 673 S.E.2d 885, 887 (Ct. App. 2009) ("[T]he legislature clearly and unambiguously specified the Act be applied prospectively, the Act cannot be applied retroactively. . . . "); State v. Dickey, 380 S.C. 384, 405, 669 S.E.2d 917, 928 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding the Act applies prospectively and stating the "savings clause" of the Act specifically provides that the Act would not affect pending actions).
AFFIRMED.
SHORT, WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.