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,
Phillip H. Tanner, Appellant.
Appeal From Florence County
John M. Milling, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-267
Submitted April 1, 2010 – Filed May 4, 2010
Phillip H. Tanner, of Pennsylvania, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: In January 2004, Phillip H. Tanner was convicted in absentia of: (1) driving under the influence, first offense; (2) driving under suspension; and (3) open container. Tanner appeals, arguing: (1) he did not receive adequate notice of his trial date; (2) the circuit court erred by considering information not included in the magistrate's criminal return to determine Tanner's motion for reconsideration was untimely; and (3) the magistrate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the driving under the influence charge after it was remanded from circuit court. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. Whether Tanner received adequate notice of his trial date: State v. Langston, 275 S.C. 439, 441, 272 S.E.2d 436, 437 (1980) (holding there is a presumption in criminal cases that "the mailing of a properly stamped and addressed letter which is not returned by the postal authorities gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the letter was received by the addressee in the due course of mail").
2. Whether the circuit court erred in considering information not included in the magistrate court's return: Rule 59(e), SCRCP ("A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after receipt of written notice of the entry of the order.").
3. Whether the magistrate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction: S.C. Code Ann. § 56-7-10 (Supp. 2009) (providing in part "[t]he service of the uniform traffic ticket shall vest all . . . magistrates' courts with jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the charge for which the ticket was issued and served."); City of Camden v. Brassell, 326 S.C. 556, 566, 486 S.E.2d 492, 497 (Ct. App. 1997) (holding driving under the influence, first offense, under section 56-5-2930 is a traffic violation pursuant to section 20-7-10, and subject matter is vested concurrently in the municipal courts, magistrate courts, and family courts).
SHORT, WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.