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

The State, Respondent,

v.

George
Cleveland, III, Appellant.

Appeal From Pickens County

 Robin B. Stilwell, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-576

Submitted December 1, 2011 – Filed
December 20, 2011   

AFFIRMED

George Cleveland, pro se, of Seneca.

Kay Barrett, of Clemson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  George
Cleveland appeals the circuit court's affirmation of his municipal court
conviction for speeding.  He argues the circuit court erred in holding (1) the
municipal court's finding the police officer identified himself was supported
by the evidence and (2) that dismissal was an inappropriate remedy for a police
officer's violation of section 56-5-4640 of the South Carolina Code (2006).  We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the circuit court
erred in holding the municipal court's findings were supported by the record: City
of Rock Hill v. Suchenski, 374 S.C. 12, 15, 646 S.E.2d 879, 880 (2007)
("In criminal appeals from municipal court, the circuit court does not
conduct a de novo review. . . .  [An] appellate court reviews errors of law
only." (citations omitted)).

2.  As to whether the circuit court
erred in holding dismissal was an inappropriate remedy for a police officer's
violation of section 56-5-4640: State v. Gault, 375 S.C. 570, 573-74,
654 S.E.2d 98, 99-100 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding that an argument first raised to
the circuit court in an appeal from the magistrate's court was unpreserved for
review).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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