State v. Myers

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.

Dameon Myers, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002775

Appeal From Georgetown County
Larry B. Hyman, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-260
Submitted May 1, 2017 – Filed June 28, 2017

AFFIRMED

Dameon Myers, pro se.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Vann Henry Gunter, Jr., both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, II, of
Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Dameon Myers appeals the circuit court's order denying his writ
of error coram nobis and a demand for dismissal for failure to state the proper
jurisdiction and venue. On appeal, Myers argues the circuit court (1) did not
possess judicial power, (2) made a substantive error in denying Loushanda Myers
the opportunity to present her petition, (3) acted in excess of its jurisdiction, (4) did
not possess lawful and proper jurisdiction to enter a judgment and conviction
against him, and (5) cannot decide matters of the United States Constitution.

Initially, we find South Carolina no longer recognizes the writ of error coram
nobis. See Rule 60, SCRCP ("Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela,
and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the
procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as
prescribed in these rules or by an independent action."). Further, although the
circuit court does have jurisdiction to consider timely post-trial motions, such
motions must be made within ten days of the sentence. Here, even if Myers's writ
is construed as a Rule 29(a), SCRCP, motion, it was untimely. See Rule 29(a),
SCRCP ("Except for motions for new trials based on after-discovered evidence,
post-trial motions shall be made within ten (10) days after the imposition of the
sentence."). Accordingly, the circuit court's order is

AFFIRMED. 1

WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., and LEE, A.J., concur.

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