State v. Barnett

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.

James Joseph Barnett,
Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-532

Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed
December 2, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A.
Franklin-Best, 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 Mark R. Farthing, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Barry J. Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  James Joseph Barnett appeals his
convictions for assault and battery with intent to kill, armed robbery, and
kidnapping, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by allowing him to
absent himself from the proceedings.  We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority:  State v.
Ravenell, 387 S.C. 449, 456, 692 S.E.2d 554, 558 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In order to claim the protection afforded by the rule of
law that a criminal defendant may be tried in his absence only upon a trial
court's finding that the defendant has received the requisite notice of his
right to be present and advisement that the trial would proceed in his absence
if he failed to attend, a defendant or his attorney must object at the first
opportunity to do so, and failure to so object constitutes waiver of the issue
on appeal." (citation omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

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

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