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.

Roscoe Roy Moore, III, Appellant.

Appeal From Florence County
Edward B. Cottingham, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-502
Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed November 12, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General A. West Lee, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar L. Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Roscoe Roy Moore, III, was convicted of shoplifting, third offense or greater, following his trial in absentia and without counsel. He appeals, asserting his failure to appear at trial did not operate as a valid waiver of counsel.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Roberson, 382 S.C. 185, 187-88, 675 S.E.2d 732, 733-34 (2009) (finding, where defendant was advised at the bond hearing that he was to appear at court on the trial date, he signed a bond form stating the same, he was sent notice of appearance for court, and his background showed a familiarity with the court system, a waiver by conduct of the right to counsel was inferable from defendant's actions by his disregard for the instructions of the court and his inexcusable absence from trial; Faretta requirements that a defendant be advised of his right to counsel and of the dangers of self-representation were irrelevant and posed no bar to waiver where the defendant gave no indication he wished to proceed pro se, but instead failed to appear at trial); State v. Cain, 277 S.C. 210, 210-11, 284 S.E.2d 779, 779 (1981) (inferring a waiver of right to counsel and affirming defendant's conviction and sentence where defendant, who was tried in absentia and without counsel, failed to fulfill the conditions of his appearance bond and neglected to keep in contact with his attorney despite knowing the trial was imminent).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and HUFF and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 

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