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. 2014-002776

Appeal From Georgetown County
Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-196
Submitted April 1, 2018 – Filed May 9, 2018

AFFIRMED

Loushonda Myers, of Georgetown, pro se.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Vann Henry Gunter, Jr., both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, II, of
Conway, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Loushonda Myers appeals her conviction for direct criminal
contempt and sentence of six months' imprisonment, arguing the trial court erred
by (1) denying her due process of law, (2) denying her the right to a fair trial, (3)
appointing an attorney on her behalf, (4) denying her request for a jury trial, (5)
improperly exercising jurisdiction, (6) finding she had engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law, (7) interfering with a contract, (8) depriving her of her fundamental
rights, (9) limiting her right to be heard, and (10) committing fraud. We affirm1
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to the first issue, we find Myers was not denied due process. See
Dangerfield v. State, 376 S.C. 176, 179, 656 S.E.2d 352, 354 (2008) ("The
procedural component of the state and federal due process clauses requires the
individual whose property or liberty interests are affected to have received
adequate notice of the proceeding, the opportunity to be heard in person, the
opportunity to introduce evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse
witnesses, and the right to meaningful judicial review.").

2. As to issues two, three, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten, we find these issues are
not preserved for appellate review. See State v. Policao, 402 S.C. 547, 556, 741
S.E.2d 774, 778 (Ct. App. 2013) (stating arguments raised for the first time on
appeal are not preserved for appellate review); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142,
587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate
review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court]. Issues not
raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal."); In re
Care & Treatment of Corley, 365 S.C. 252, 258, 616 S.E.2d 441, 444 (Ct. App.
2005) ("Constitutional issues, like most others, must be raised to and ruled upon by
the trial court to be preserved for appeal.").

3. As to the fourth issue, we find the trial court did not err in denying Myers's
request for a jury trial. See Ex parte Cannon, 385 S.C. 643, 660, 685 S.E.2d 814,
823 (Ct. App. 2009) ("It is within the circuit court's discretion to punish by fine or
imprisonment every act of contempt before the court."); id. at 666, 685 S.E.2d at
827 ("Regardless of whether a six-month imprisonment sentence is imposed for
civil or criminal contempt, a contemnor has no right to a jury trial for an
imprisonment sentence of six months or less."); Rhoad v. State, 372 S.C. 100, 107,
641 S.E.2d 35, 38 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[A] contemnor may be tried without a jury
under certain circumstances, as long as the sentence imposed is no longer than six
months.").

4. As to the fifth issue, we find the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over
Myers. See Cannon, 385 S.C. at 654, 685 S.E.2d at 820 ("Personal jurisdiction
may be waived, but subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived."); id. at 658,

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
685 S.E.2d at 822 ("A defendant may waive any complaints he may have regarding
personal jurisdiction by failing to object to the lack of personal jurisdiction and by
appearing to defend his case."); McEachern v. Black, 329 S.C. 642, 649, 496
S.E.2d 659, 662 (Ct. App. 1998) ("[Trial courts] have the authority to sua sponte
use contempt proceedings to preserve the authority and dignity of their courts.");
S.C. Code Ann. § 14-5-320 (2017) ("The [trial] court may punish by fine or
imprisonment, at the discretion of the court, all contempts of authority in any cause
or hearing before the same.").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, GEATHERS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.