DocketNumber： 2009-UP-359
Filed Date： 6/23/2009
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 10/22/2024
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.
State of South Carolina, Plaintiff,
v.
Yashica N. Cleveland, Appellant,
In Re: A.D. Bail Bonding, Respondent.
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Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-359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.