State v. Mayberry and Steen ( 2022 )

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.
Cornelius Sentell Mayberry, Defendant,
and
John Steen d/b/a John Steen Bail Bonding and Palmetto
Surety Corp., as Surety, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2020-000771
Appeal From Cherokee County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-245
Submitted May 1, 2022 – Filed June 8, 2022
AFFIRMED
Robert T. Williams, Sr. and Jason Thomas Yonge, both
of Williams, Stitely & Brink, PC, of Lexington, for
Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch,
Jr., both of Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Joe Barnette,
of Spartanburg, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: John Steen, d/b/a John Steen Bail Bonding and Palmetto Surety
Corporation, appeals the order of the circuit court requiring the estreatment of
Cornelius Mayberry's $465,000 recognizance bond. On appeal, Steen argues the
circuit court erred by (1) not finding an intervening event prevented Mayberry
from appearing in court on October 8, 2018, and (2) failing to make specific
factual findings and exercise its discretion pursuant to Ex Parte Polk1 and section
38-53-70 of the South Carolina Code (2015). We affirm.
1. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by finding the attempt by federal
law enforcement to arrest Mayberry was not an intervening event because the
testimony indicating Mayberry evaded arrest, removed his ankle monitor, and was
not detained until April 2019 was evidence indicating Mayberry's failure to appear
constituted "willful default." See State v. McClinton, 369 S.C. 167, 170, 631
S.E.2d 895, 896 (2006) ("An appellate court reviews the circuit court's ruling on
the forfeiture or remission of a bail bond for abuse of discretion."); id. ("An abuse
of discretion occurs when the circuit court's ruling is . . . without evidentiary
support . . . ."); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-15-180 (2014) ("If any person shall forfeit a
recognizance from ignorance or unavoidable impediment and not from wilful
default, the court . . . may . . . remit the [bond] as may be deemed reasonable."
(emphasis added)); § 38-53-70 ("[T]he court may direct that the [bond] be
remitted . . . if it appears that justice requires the remission of part or all of the
judgment.").
2. Whether the circuit court erred by asserting it lacked discretion to remit
Mayberry's bond or by failing to make specific factual findings is not preserved for
appellate review because these issues were neither raised to nor ruled upon by the
circuit court. See State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003)
("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been
raised to and ruled upon by the [circuit court].").
AFFIRMED.2
THOMAS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.
1
354 S.C. 8, 13, 579 S.E.2d 329, 331 (Ct. App. 2003).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.