Tabone v. Greenville County

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

Michael Tabone, Appellant,

v.

Greenville County, Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County

Robin B. Stilwell, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-279

Submitted April 2, 2012 - Filed May 9,
2012

AFFIRMED

Adam Fisher, Jr., of Greenville, for
Appellant.

H. Dean Campbell and Jeffrey D. Wile, both
of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Michael Tabone
appeals the circuit court's order affirming the magistrate's finding him in
contempt, arguing the contempt finding violated his due process rights. We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the contempt finding
violated Tabone's due process rights: State v. Passmore, 363 S.C. 568,
584, 611 S.E.2d 273, 282 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding due process claims must be
raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court in order to preserve them for
review on appeal).

2. As to whether the circuit court
erred in affirming the magistrate's finding Tabone in contempt: Miller v.
Miller, 375 S.C. 443, 452, 652 S.E.2d 754, 759 (Ct. App. 2007) ("An
appellate court should reverse a decision regarding contempt only if it is
without evidentiary support or the [circuit court] has abused [its]
discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs either when the court is controlled
by some error of law or where the order, based upon findings of fact, lacks
evidentiary support." (citations and quotation marks omitted)); State
v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 450-51, 503 S.E.2d 214, 219 (Ct. App. 1998)
("Direct contempt is defined as contemptuous conduct occurring in the
presence of the court. South Carolina courts have liberally applied the presence
requirement . . . . The court consists not of the judge, the courtroom, the
jury, or the jury room individually, but of all of these combined. The court is
present wherever any of its constituent parts is engaged in the prosecution of
the business of the court according to law." (citations and quotation
marks omitted)); Rhoad v. State, 372 S.C. 100, 106, 641 S.E.2d 35, 37 (Ct.
App. 2007) ("South Carolina courts have taken an expansive view of the
presence and court requirements to encompass all elements of the judicial
system, not just the mere physical presence of the judge or courtroom."
(internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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