Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-355 - Archie v. Howie
SCREENING MEMORANDUM

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

Ex Parte:  Nettie Archie d/b/a Archie Bail Bonding Co., Inc. and Accredited Surety and Casualty Co., Inc.,

Of Whom Nettie Archie is the        Appellant,

In Re:

The State,        Respondent.

Madeline Ann Howie        Defendant.


Appeal From York County
Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-355
Submitted March 19, 2004 – Filed June 4, 2004


AFFIRMED


Nettie M. Archie, of Chester, pro se.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Harold M. Coombs, all of Columbia;  and Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Archie contends the trial court made several mistakes with regards to the Estreatment Hearing. We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR and the following authorities:  Ellie, Inc. v. Miccichi, ___ S.C. ___, ___ 594 S.E.2d 485, 496 (Ct. App. 2004); (stating that pursuant to Rule 208(b)(1)(D), SCACR, the brief shall be divided into as many parts as there are issues to be argued.  “At the head of each part, the particular issue to be addressed shall be set forth in distinctive type, followed by discussion and citations of authority”); Glasscock Inc., v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 348 S.C. 76, 81, 557 S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct. App. 2001) (finding where an issue is not argued within the body of the brief but is only a short conclusory statement, the issue is abandoned on appeal); State v. Burton, 356 S.C. 259, 265, 589 S.E.2d 6, 9 n.5 (2003) (finding a pro se litigant has full responsibility for complying with substantive and procedural requirements of the law); Goodson v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., 295 S.C. 400, 403, 368 S.E.2d 687, 689 (“Lack of familiarity with legal proceedings is unacceptable and the court will not hold a layman to any lesser standard that is applied to an attorney.”); State v. Lytchfield, 230 S.C. 405, ___, 95 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1957) (“The granting or refusal of a motion for continuance is within the discretion of the trial judge and his disposition of such a motion will not be reversed on appeal unless it is shown that there was an abuse of discretion to the prejudice of appellant.”).

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.


[1]   Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.