Cantrell v. Watts

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD
NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED
BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Robert J. Cantrell,       
Appellant,

v.

Carol C. Watts, F/K/A Carol C. Cantrell,       
Respondent.

Appeal From Anderson County

Tommy B. Edwards, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-324

Submitted March 19, 2004 – Filed May
14, 2004

AFFIRMED

Charles W. Whiten, of Anderson, for Appellant.

Carolyn G. Baird, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Robert Cantrell appeals, arguing
the trial court erred by holding him in contempt of court for failing to take
a drug test within 10 days as required by court order.  We affirm.1

LAW/ANALYSIS

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the
following authorities:  I. As to the contempt order: see Wilson v.
Walker, 340 S.C. 531, 537, 532 S.E.2d 19, 21-22 (Ct. App. 2000) (noting
that in an appeal from an order of the family court, this court has jurisdiction
to find facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence; however,
this court is not required to disregard the trial judge’s findings who saw and
heard the witnesses and was in a better position to evaluate their credibility);
State v. Bevilacqua, 316 S.C. 122, 129, 447 S.E.2d 213, 217 (Ct. App.
1994) (“A determination of contempt ordinarily resides in the sound discretion
of the trial judge.”).  II. As to the willfulness of Cantrell’s actions: see
S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-1350 (Supp. 2003) (“An adult who willfully violates, neglects,
or refuses to obey or perform a lawful order of the court . . . may be proceeded
against for contempt of court.”); Bevilacqua, 316 S.C. at 129, 447 S.E.2d
at 217 (citing Spartanburg County Dep’t of Social Servs. v. Padgett,
296 S.C. 79, 82-83, 370 S.E.2d 872, 874 (1988)) (“A willful act is defined as
one ‘done voluntarily and intentionally with the specific intent to do something
the law forbids, or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law
requires to be done; that is to say with bad purpose either to disobey or disregard
the law.’ ”) 

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rules 215
and 220(b)(2), SCACR.