State v. Stewart

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.

Travis Jerome Stewart, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-204286

Appeal From Richland County
James R. Barber, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-035
Submitted December 3, 2012 – Filed January 16, 2013

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Solicitor
Daniel Edward Johnson, all of Columbia, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Travis Jerome Stewart appeals his conviction and sentence from
a guilty plea entered February 28, 2011. We lack jurisdiction to address this
appeal because Stewart failed to serve a timely notice of appeal; thus, we dismiss.

Stewart served his notice of appeal on November 29, 2011, after the trial court
orally denied his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion for reconsideration
of his sentence on November 21, 2011. The motion to reconsider the order
denying his initial motion to reconsider the sentence was untimely because post-
trial motions must be filed within ten days of sentencing. 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."). Accordingly, Stewart's notice of appeal was untimely served. See
Rule 203(b)(2), SCACR ("When a timely post-trial motion is made under Rule
29(a), SCRCrimP, the time to appeal shall be stayed and shall begin to run from
receipt of written notice of entry of an order granting or denying such motion.");
Rule 29, SCRCrimP ("[P]ost-trial motions shall be made within ten (10) days after
the imposition of the sentence. . . . The time for appeal for all parties shall be
stayed by a timely post-trial motion and shall run from the receipt of written notice
of entry of the order granting or denying such motion."). Therefore, we dismiss.
See Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 169, 337 S.E.2d 206, 207 (1985) (explaining
timely service of the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and the
appellate courts have no authority to extend the time in which the notice of intent
to appeal must be served).

APPEAL DISMISSED.1

SHORT, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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