State v. Cleveland

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Cleveland

DecidedJune 23, 2009

Docket2009-UP-359

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Cleveland (State v. Cleveland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Cleveland, (S.C. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

State of South Carolina, Plaintiff,

v.

Patrice D. Cleveland, Appellant,

In Re: A.D. Bail Bonding, Respondent.

Yashica N. Cleveland, Appellant,

Appeal From Oconee County
J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-359
Submitted June 1, 2009 Filed June 23, 2009

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellants.

Robert Mills Ariail, Jr., of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Following Patrice and Yashica Cleveland's arrest for distribution of crack cocaine, they were released after posting bond, with surety provided by A.D. Bail Bonding (Bail Bonding). Subsequently, both Patrice and Yashica were arrested on new drug-related charges, and Bail Bonding filed a motion to be relieved of its obligations under the bonds. This appeal is from the circuit court's grant of Bail Bonding's motion. On appeal, Patrice and Yashica maintain the circuit court erred in allowing Bail Bonding to proceed pro se at the motion hearing and erred in determining notice was sufficient. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Doe v. McMaster, 355 S.C. 306, 313, 585 S.E.2d 773, 777 (2003) (stating South Carolina law recognizes an individual's ability to appear pro se with leave of the court); Gardner v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 353 S.C. 1, 14, 577 S.E.2d 190, 197 (2003) (holding as a general rule, a party must establish prejudice as the result of another's failure to follow mandatory statutory procedure); Palmetto Alliance, Inc. v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 282 S.C. 430, 435, 319 S.E.2d 695, 698 (1984) (stating to prevail on a claim of denial of due process, there must be a showing of substantial prejudice); Ex parte Bonds, 358 S.C. 652, 655, 596 S.E.2d 378, 379 (Ct. App. 2004) (explaining circuit court's have discretion in determining whether a surety should be relieved of bond).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

State of South Carolina, Plaintiff,

v.

Patrice D. Cleveland, Appellant,

In Re: A.D. Bail Bonding, Respondent.

Yashica N. Cleveland, Appellant,

Appeal From Oconee County
J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-359
Submitted June 1, 2009 Filed June 23, 2009

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellants.

Robert Mills Ariail, Jr., of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Following Patrice and Yashica Cleveland's arrest for distribution of crack cocaine, they were released after posting bond, with surety provided by A.D. Bail Bonding (Bail Bonding). Subsequently, both Patrice and Yashica were arrested on new drug-related charges, and Bail Bonding filed a motion to be relieved of its obligations under the bonds. This appeal is from the circuit court's grant of Bail Bonding's motion. On appeal, Patrice and Yashica maintain the circuit court erred in allowing Bail Bonding to proceed pro se at the motion hearing and erred in determining notice was sufficient. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Doe v. McMaster, 355 S.C. 306, 313, 585 S.E.2d 773, 777 (2003) (stating South Carolina law recognizes an individual's ability to appear pro se with leave of the court); Gardner v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 353 S.C. 1, 14, 577 S.E.2d 190, 197 (2003) (holding as a general rule, a party must establish prejudice as the result of another's failure to follow mandatory statutory procedure); Palmetto Alliance, Inc. v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 282 S.C. 430, 435, 319 S.E.2d 695, 698 (1984) (stating to prevail on a claim of denial of due process, there must be a showing of substantial prejudice); Ex parte Bonds, 358 S.C. 652, 655, 596 S.E.2d 378, 379 (Ct. App. 2004) (explaining circuit court's have discretion in determining whether a surety should be relieved of bond).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Cleveland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cleveland-scctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack