State v. State v. Terbias J. Goff

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.

Terbias Jerrod Goff, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2022-000112

Appeal From Horry County
Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2024-UP-102
Submitted March 1, 2024 – Filed March 27, 2024

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Jessica M. Saxon, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Joshua Abraham Edwards, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, II, of
Conway, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Terbias Jerrod Goff appeals his conviction for failing to register
as a sex offender, second offense, and his sentence of 366 days' imprisonment. On
appeal, Goff argues the trial court erred by denying his motion for a continuance and
trying him in absentia. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold the trial court did not err in denying the continuance request and trying Goff
in absentia. See State v. Ravenell, 387 S.C. 449, 454, 692 S.E.2d 554, 557 (Ct. App.
2010) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); id.
at 455, 692 S.E.2d at 557 ("It is well established that, although the Sixth Amendment
of the United States Constitution guarantees the right of an accused to be present at
every stage of his trial, this right may be waived, and a defendant may be tried in his
absence."); id. at 455, 692 S.E.2d at 557-58 ("A trial judge must determine a criminal
defendant voluntarily waived his right to be present at trial in order to try the
defendant in his absence."). The State satisfied the notice requirements as Goff, by
signing the bond paperwork, was on notice that he had the right to be present at his
trial and could be tried in his absence if he failed to appear. See id. at 455, 692
S.E.2d at 558 ("The judge must make findings of fact on the record that the defendant
(1) received notice of his right to be present and (2) was warned he would be tried
in his absence should he fail to attend."); Rule 16, SCRCrimP ("[A] person indicted
for misdemeanors and/or felonies may voluntarily waive his right to be present and
may be tried in his absence upon a finding by the court that such person has received
notice of his right to be present and that a warning was given that the trial would
proceed in his absence upon a failure to attend the court."); State v. Fairey, 374 S.C.
92, 101, 646 S.E.2d 445, 449 (Ct. App. 2007) ("A bond form that provides notice
that a defendant can be tried in absentia may serve as the requisite notice."). Also,
Goff did not receive actual notice of his trial date because of his own actions as the
State attempted to serve Goff via the mail and in person to no avail because Goff
failed to notify the court of his current address, despite his acknowledgement of his
obligation to do so. See id. at 100, 646 S.E.2d at 448 ("Notice of the term of court
for which the trial is set constitutes sufficient notice to enable a criminal defendant
to make an effective waiver of his right to be present." (quoting City of Aiken v.
Koontz, 368 S.C. 542, 547, 629 S.E.2d 686, 689 (Ct. App. 2006))); see also State v.
Wrapp, 421 S.C. 531, 537, 808 S.E.2d 821, 824 (Ct. App. 2017) ("It seems logical
that for one to voluntarily fail to attend trial or otherwise waive his trial appearance,
one must actually know when the trial is to occur."); Fairey, 374 S.C. at 101, 646
S.E.2d at 449 (holding the defendant received adequate notice when the State mailed
the notice to the last official, permanent address he provided to the court and the
State, and he failed to keep the court or the State informed of his change in address);
Ellis v. State, 267 S.C. 257, 261, 227 S.E.2d 304, 306 (1976) ("The deliberate
absence of a defendant who knows that he stands accused in a criminal case and that
his trial will begin during a specific period of time indicates nothing less than an
intention to obstruct the orderly processes of justice.").
AFFIRMED. 1

GEATHERS, HEWITT, and VINSON, JJ., concur.

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