State v. Myers

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.

LouShonda Myers, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001023

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-171
Submitted February 1, 2017 – Filed April 19, 2017

AFFIRMED

LouShonda Myers, of Georgetown, pro se.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Brian T. Petrano, both of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: LouShonda Myers appeals an order from the circuit court
dismissing her pleading titled "Administrative Notice/Coram Nobis." Myers
argues the circuit court erred in dismissing her motion and denied her due process.
We construe the "Administrative Notice/Coram Nobis" document as a post-trial
motion because Myers stated the purpose of the "Administrative Notice/Coram
Nobis" was to "correct the judgment and/or order of . . . contempt." The circuit
court did not err in dismissing this motion. First, we note the doctrine of "Coram
Nobis" was abolished in South Carolina. See Rule 60(b), SCRCP ("Writs of coram
nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a
bill of review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a
judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent
action."). Furthermore, any post-trial motion must be made within ten days from
the imposition of a sentence. See Rule 29(a), SCRCrimP ("[P]ost-trial motions
shall be made within ten (10) days after the imposition of the sentence.").
Accordingly, we affirm1 the circuit court's dismissal of Myers's motion because it
was not timely filed following the September 26, 2014 order of contempt. See
State v. Warren, 392 S.C. 235, 239, 708 S.E.2d 234, 236 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The
[circuit] court does not retain authority to entertain a motion which is not made
within ten days of sentencing.").

AFFIRMED.

LOCKEMY, C.J., and GEATHERS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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