Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-299 - Town of Prosperity v. Hare

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

Town of Prosperity, Respondent,

v.

Daniel L. Hare, Appellant.


Appeal From Newberry County
C. Tolbert Goolsby, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-299 
Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 14, 2011


AFFIRMED


Daniel L. Hare, pro se, of Prosperity, for Appellant.

Henry P. Bufkin and Timothy D. Savidge, both of Prosperity, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Daniel L. Hare appeals his conviction for failure to leave the premises when ordered to do so by a police officer.  He first argues the municipal court erroneously instructed the jury, failed to record the trial, failed to file a return with the circuit court, and failed to attend the circuit court appeal.  Second, Hare claims the municipal court denied him equal protection in enforcing an arrest with a racial pretext.  And third, Hare maintains the municipal court denied him (a) procedural due process in failing to provide him notice of the denial of his motion for a new trial and (b) effective assistance of counsel where his trial counsel told him he did not have a statutory right to appeal and failed to inform him of the municipal court's denial of his motion for a new trial.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1. As to whether the municipal court erroneously instructed the jury, failed to record the trial, failed to file a return, and failed to appear at his circuit court appeal: State v. Bryant, 383 S.C. 410, 418, 680 S.E.2d 11, 15 (Ct. App. 2009) ("An issue must be raised and ruled upon in the [trial] court in order to be preserved for appellate review."); State v. Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 58, 609 S.E.2d 520, 523 (2005) ("To preserve an issue for review there must be a contemporaneous objection that is ruled upon by the trial court." (citation omitted)).

2.  As to whether the municipal court denied Hare equal protection: Bryant, 383 S.C. at 418, 680 S.E.2d at 15 ("An issue must be raised and ruled upon in the [trial] court in order to be preserved for appellate review."); City of Rock Hill v. Suchenski, 374 S.C. 12, 16, 646 S.E.2d 879, 880 (2007) (holding the South Carolina Supreme Court could not review an issue from a decision by the circuit court sitting in appellate capacity where the circuit court did not rule on the issue and the appellant failed to file a Rule 59(e) motion regarding the issue).

3.  As to whether the municipal court denied Hare procedural due process and effective assistance of counsel: State v. Colden, 372 S.C. 428, 436, 641 S.E.2d 912, 917 (Ct. App. 2007) (providing that for an alleged "error to warrant reversal, the error must result in prejudice to the appellant" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


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