Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-345 - Adams v. State

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

Charles Adams, Respondent,

v.

The State, Appellant.


Appeal From Horry County
Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-345
Submitted June 1, 2009 – Filed June 22, 2009
Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled September 18, 2009


Affirmed


Michael J. O'Sullivan, of Conway, for Appellant.

Gregory Scott Bellamy, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  The State appeals the circuit court's denial of its motion to dismiss Charles Adams's appeal for failure to provide sufficient notice of appeal to the magistrate.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 14-5-340 (1976) (providing that the circuit court has jurisdiction to "hear appeals from magistrates' courts . . . to the court of general sessions and the court of common pleas, upon notice as required by law being given for the hearing of such appeals"); S.C. Code Ann. § 18-3-30 (1985) (providing that to perfect an appeal from a decision of the magistrates' court, the appellant must "within ten days after sentence, serve notice of appeal upon the magistrate who tried the case, stating the grounds upon which the appeal is founded"); See Ramage v. Ramage, 283 S.C. 239, 244, 322 S.E.2d 22, 25 (Ct. App. 1984) (finding an appellate court may consider a vague or general exception if the exception is reasonably clear from the appellant's arguments); Bartles v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 448, 464, 319 S.E.2d 707, 716 (Ct. App. 1984) ("The standard which guides [an appellate court] is whether, despite the improperly framed exception, the issue sought to be raised is reasonably clear to [the appellate court] and the adverse party.").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS and LOCKEMY, JJ., and Cureton, A.J., concur.


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