State v. Moore

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.

Roscoe Roy Moore, III, Appellant.

Appeal From Florence County

Edward B. Cottingham, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-502

Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed November
12, 2010   

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley
W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General A. West Lee, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Edgar L. Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Roscoe
Roy Moore, III, was convicted of shoplifting, third
offense or greater, following his trial in absentia and without counsel. He
appeals, asserting his failure to appear at trial did not operate as a valid
waiver of counsel.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR,
and the following authorities:  State
v. Roberson, 382 S.C. 185, 187-88, 675
S.E.2d 732, 733-34 (2009) (finding, where defendant was advised at the bond
hearing that he was to appear at court on the trial date, he signed a bond form
stating the same, he was sent notice of appearance for court, and his
background showed a familiarity with the court system, a waiver by conduct of
the right to counsel was inferable from defendant's actions by his disregard
for the instructions of the court and his inexcusable absence from trial; Faretta requirements that a defendant be advised of his right to counsel and of the
dangers of self-representation were irrelevant and posed no bar to waiver where
the defendant gave no indication he wished to proceed pro se, but instead
failed to appear at trial); State v. Cain, 277 S.C. 210, 210-11, 284
S.E.2d 779, 779 (1981) (inferring a waiver of right to counsel and affirming
defendant's conviction and sentence where defendant, who was tried in absentia
and without counsel, failed to fulfill the conditions of his appearance bond
and neglected to keep in contact with his attorney despite knowing the trial
was imminent).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and
HUFF and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 

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