jeopardy grounds was not immediately appealable, but reviewing the appeal pursuant to appellate court’s original jurisdiction). III. Conclusion Despite Rearick’s arguments to the contrary, we conclude that Abney does not alter the rule in Miller. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal without prejudice. APPEAL DISMISSED. KITTREDGE and FEW, JJ., concur. PLEICONES, C.J., and HEARN, J., concurring in result only. 1 . U.S. Const. amend. V; S.C. Const. art. I, § 12. 2 . S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2945(A)(2) (Supp. 2015). 3 . Id. § 56-5-2953 (Supp. 2015) (requiring that a person charged with DUI have his conduct at the incident site recorded on video, including field sobriety tests, unless certain exceptions apply); see City of Rock Hill v. Suchenski, 374 S.C. 12, 17, 646 S.E.2d 879, 881 (2007) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Missouri v. McNeely, -U.S. -, 133 S.Ct.
holding that dui is not such an offense holding that the appropriate remedy for a public trial violation was a new suppression hearing not a new trial because the remedy should be appropriate to the violation holding dismissal with prejudice is appropriate remedy for failure to timely file undertaking holding dismissal of a dui charge is an appropriate remedy provided by section 5652953 where a violation of subsection a is not mitigated by subsection b exceptions holding that in considering dismissal of an appeal the court should exercise discretion to determine whether dismissal is appropriate in the circumstances presented by the case