State v. Anderson

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

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

John M. Anderson,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County

Clyde N. Davis, Jr., Special Circuit
Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-211

Submitted January 29, 2004 – Filed March
25, 2004

AFFIRMED

John M. Anderson, pro se, of Irmo, for Appellant.

Patrick M. Teague, Senior Assistant General Counsel, South
Carolina Department of Public Safety, of Blythewood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  John M. Anderson was convicted
in his absence in magistrate’s court for a traffic violation.  The circuit court
affirmed the conviction.  We affirm. 

Appellant received a traffic ticket on June 14, 2001
for speeding.  He failed to appear at his scheduled hearing, and was tried in
his absence and found guilty.  He received notice of the conviction by mail
on April 15, 2002.   On April 24, 2002, Appellant wrote a letter to the
traffic court requesting to reopen the case.  Although the motion for a new
trial was untimely, the magistrate scheduled a hearing on Appellant’s motion
for May 30, 2002.  S.C. Code Ann. § 22-3-1000 (Supp. 2003) (“No motion for a
new trial may be heard unless made within five days from the rendering of the
judgment”).  Appellant failed to appear for the May 30 hearing, and the motion
was denied.

The essence of the appeal to the circuit
court and this court is Appellant’s desire for “an opportunity to stand in front
of a judge based on the charges brought against [him].”  While we appreciate
Appellant’s desire, there is simply no legal basis to afford him relief.  The
record establishes that the magistrate’s office provided proper notice of the
motion for new trial to Appellant at his correct address.
[1]   Assuming Appellant’s receipt of notice of his conviction on April
15, 2002 may be liberally construed as the date of “rendering of the judgment,”
his new trial motion would nevertheless be untimely pursuant to Section 22-3-1000. 
We additionally note that Appellant’s conclusory brief falls short of the appellate
court rules.  Rule 208 (b)(1)(D), SCACR; see also Fields v.
Melrose Ltd. P’ship, 312 S.C. 102, 106, 439 S.E.2d 283, 285 (Ct. App. 1993)
(stating that an issue is deemed abandoned on appeal and, therefore, not presented
for review, if it is argued in a short, conclusory statement without supporting
authority).  

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur. 
 

[1] Appellant’s address is 17 High Ridge Road, Irmo, South Carolina,
29063. This is the address where the Department of Public Safety mailed Appellant
notice of his conviction, which Appellant admittedly received on April 15,
2002.