In a recent ruling, the South Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of Levy Ernest Dunn, III, for domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature (DVHAN). Dunn, who received an 18-year prison sentence, argued that the trial court made errors regarding his motion for a mistrial. However, the court found that his claims were not preserved for appellate review, leading to the affirmation of his conviction.

The case, identified as docket number 2026-UP-472, was filed on November 12, 2026. The court's decision has significant implications for Dunn and highlights the importance of procedural rules in criminal cases.

Background

Levy Dunn was convicted of domestic violence in a trial held in Greenville County. The specifics of the incident leading to his conviction were not detailed in the court opinion. Dunn's legal team, led by Senior Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, challenged the trial court's handling of a mistrial motion. They argued that the court should have declared a mistrial instead of allowing the trial to proceed with only eleven jurors.

The dispute arose when Dunn's defense claimed that three jurors had engaged in premature deliberations. The trial judge, G. D. Morgan, Jr., considered the situation but ultimately did not rule on the mistrial motion. Instead, the judge suggested proceeding with the trial using two alternate jurors to maintain an eleven-member jury. Dunn agreed to this arrangement, believing the court was not inclined to grant a mistrial.

The Ruling

The Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed Dunn's conviction, stating that the issue regarding the mistrial was not preserved for appellate review. The court cited a previous case, State v. Watts, which established that for an issue to be preserved for appeal, it must be both presented to and ruled upon by the trial court. The opinion noted, "To be preserved for appellate review, an issue must be both presented to and passed upon by the trial court."

Despite Dunn's claims, the court found that he had agreed to proceed with the eleven-member jury and did not argue that he would be harmed by this decision. The ruling stated, "Dunn agreed to proceed with the eleven-member jury based on his 'understanding' that the court was not inclined to grant a mistrial." As a result, the court concluded that the mistrial issue was not properly before them.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for Dunn, who will now serve his 18-year sentence. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural rules in the legal system. Defendants must ensure that their motions and objections are clearly presented and preserved for appeal. Failure to do so, as in Dunn's case, can result in the loss of the right to contest certain issues later.

The decision may also influence future cases involving similar procedural challenges. It underscores the necessity for defendants and their attorneys to be vigilant in preserving their rights during trial proceedings. This case illustrates the potential consequences of procedural missteps in the criminal justice system.

What's Next

As the court has affirmed Dunn's conviction, he may seek further legal recourse, but options for appeal may be limited due to the nature of the ruling. There are no indications in the court filing about related cases pending or additional appeals being pursued at this time.