In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Luis Lopez

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

In the Matter
of the Care and Treatment of Luis Lopez, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

C. Victor Pyle, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-556

Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed
December 9, 2011

AFFIRMED

LaNelle C. DuRant, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J.
Shupe, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Luis
Lopez appeals his civil commitment to the South Carolina Department of Mental
Health as a sexually violent predator.  We affirm[1] pursuant
to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the
circuit court erred in denying Lopez's motion to dismiss on the grounds that
the proceedings violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act: Rule 6(d), SCRCP (requiring "[a] written motion
other than one which may be heard ex parte, and notice of the hearing thereof,
shall be served not later than ten days before the time specified for the
hearing, unless a different period is fixed by these rules or by an order of
the court"); Dedes v. Strickland,  307 S.C. 152, 155, 414
S.E.2d 132, 134 (1992) (finding the appellant did not receive timely
notice of the motion and motion hearing as required by Rule 6(d), SCRCP, when
the appellant received notice of the motion and hearing only two days before
the hearing).

2.  As to whether the
circuit court erred in denying Lopez's motion for a directed verdict: Rule
50(a), SCRCP ("When upon a trial the
case presents only questions of law the judge may direct a verdict . . . .  A
motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor."); Becker v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,  339 S.C. 629, 634, 529 S.E.2d
758, 761 (Ct. App. 2000) (finding the moving party failed to properly
preserve the issue for review because it failed to specify any grounds for the
motion). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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