State v. Bonner

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.

Mark Bonner, Appellant.

Appeal From Aiken County

 Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2008-UP-594

Submitted October 1, 2008 – Filed October
17, 2008

AFFIRMED

LaNelle C. DuRant, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division
of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Mark Bonner appeals his conviction for
shoplifting, arguing the trial court erred in proceeding with his trial in absentia.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v.
Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 5-6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001) (stating in criminal
cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only and is bound by
the factual findings of the trial court unless clearly erroneous); State
v. Jackson, 288 S.C. 94, 95-96, 341
S.E.2d 375, 375 (1986) (explaining before a trial in absentia begins, the trial court must make findings of fact regarding whether the
appellant had received notice of his right to be present and whether the
appellant had been warned that the trial would proceed in his absence upon a
failure to attend court). 

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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