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
Michael Tabone, Appellant,
Greenville County, Respondent.
Appeal From Greenville County
Robin B. Stilwell, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-279
Submitted April 2, 2012 - Filed May 9, 2012
Adam Fisher, Jr., of Greenville, for Appellant.
H. Dean Campbell and Jeffrey D. Wile, both of Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Michael Tabone appeals the circuit court's order affirming the magistrate's finding him in contempt, arguing the contempt finding violated his due process rights. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the contempt finding violated Tabone's due process rights: State v. Passmore, 363 S.C. 568, 584, 611 S.E.2d 273, 282 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding due process claims must be raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court in order to preserve them for review on appeal).
2. As to whether the circuit court erred in affirming the magistrate's finding Tabone in contempt: Miller v. Miller, 375 S.C. 443, 452, 652 S.E.2d 754, 759 (Ct. App. 2007) ("An appellate court should reverse a decision regarding contempt only if it is without evidentiary support or the [circuit court] has abused [its] discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs either when the court is controlled by some error of law or where the order, based upon findings of fact, lacks evidentiary support." (citations and quotation marks omitted)); State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 450-51, 503 S.E.2d 214, 219 (Ct. App. 1998) ("Direct contempt is defined as contemptuous conduct occurring in the presence of the court. South Carolina courts have liberally applied the presence requirement . . . . The court consists not of the judge, the courtroom, the jury, or the jury room individually, but of all of these combined. The court is present wherever any of its constituent parts is engaged in the prosecution of the business of the court according to law." (citations and quotation marks omitted)); Rhoad v. State, 372 S.C. 100, 106, 641 S.E.2d 35, 37 (Ct. App. 2007) ("South Carolina courts have taken an expansive view of the presence and court requirements to encompass all elements of the judicial system, not just the mere physical presence of the judge or courtroom." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.