Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-576 - State v. Cleveland

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,

v.

George Cleveland, III, Appellant.


Appeal From Pickens County
 Robin B. Stilwell, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-576
Submitted December 1, 2011 – Filed December 20, 2011   


AFFIRMED


George Cleveland, pro se, of Seneca.

Kay Barrett, of Clemson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  George Cleveland appeals the circuit court's affirmation of his municipal court conviction for speeding.  He argues the circuit court erred in holding (1) the municipal court's finding the police officer identified himself was supported by the evidence and (2) that dismissal was an inappropriate remedy for a police officer's violation of section 56-5-4640 of the South Carolina Code (2006).  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the circuit court erred in holding the municipal court's findings were supported by the record: City of Rock Hill v. Suchenski, 374 S.C. 12, 15, 646 S.E.2d 879, 880 (2007) ("In criminal appeals from municipal court, the circuit court does not conduct a de novo review. . . .  [An] appellate court reviews errors of law only." (citations omitted)).

2.  As to whether the circuit court erred in holding dismissal was an inappropriate remedy for a police officer's violation of section 56-5-4640: State v. Gault, 375 S.C. 570, 573-74, 654 S.E.2d 98, 99-100 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding that an argument first raised to the circuit court in an appeal from the magistrate's court was unpreserved for review).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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