State v. Bonner

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: October 17, 2008
• Docket: 2008-UP-594
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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Unpublished Opinion No.  2008-UP-594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.