State v. Cleveland

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

State of South
Carolina, Plaintiff,

v.

Patrice D.
Cleveland, Appellant,

In Re: A.D.
Bail Bonding, Respondent.

State of South
Carolina, Plaintiff,

v.

Yashica N.
Cleveland, Appellant,

In Re: A.D.
Bail Bonding, Respondent.

Appeal From Oconee County

 J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-359

Submitted June 1, 2009 – Filed June 23,
2009

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellants.

Robert Mills Ariail, Jr., of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Following Patrice and Yashica Cleveland's arrest for
distribution of crack cocaine, they were released  after posting bond, with
surety provided by A.D. Bail Bonding (Bail Bonding).  Subsequently, both
Patrice and Yashica were arrested on new drug-related charges, and Bail Bonding
filed a motion to be relieved of its obligations under the bonds.  This appeal
is from the circuit court's grant of Bail Bonding's motion.  On appeal, Patrice
and Yashica maintain the circuit court erred in allowing Bail Bonding to
proceed pro se at the motion hearing and erred in determining notice was
sufficient.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Doe v.
McMaster, 355 S.C. 306, 313, 585 S.E.2d 773, 777 (2003) (stating South
Carolina law recognizes an individual's ability to appear pro se with leave of
the court); Gardner v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 353 S.C. 1, 14, 577 S.E.2d
190, 197 (2003) (holding as a general rule, a party must establish
prejudice as the result of another's failure to follow mandatory statutory
procedure); Palmetto Alliance, Inc. v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 282 S.C. 430,
435, 319 S.E.2d 695, 698 (1984) (stating to prevail on a claim of denial
of due process, there must be a showing of substantial prejudice); Ex parte
Bonds, 358 S.C. 652, 655, 596 S.E.2d 378, 379 (Ct. App. 2004) (explaining
circuit court's have discretion in determining whether a surety should be
relieved of bond).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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