State v. Cain

Per Curiam: The appellant was tried in absentia and without counsel and convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, third offense. He was sentenced to three (3) years’ imprisonment and a fine of $2,000. He argues the court cannot infer a valid waiver of his right to counsel from his failure to be present at trial. We disagree and affirm the conviction. The appellant was released on a general appearance bond 1 and was represented by counsel at a preliminary hearing. Both the appellant and his attorney knew the case was coming up for trial. The appellant knew he had a duty to stay in touch with his attorney and with the court. We held in State v. Jacobs, 271 S. C. 126, 245 S. E. (2d) 606 (1978) that a waiver of the right to counsel can be inferred from a defendant’s actions. In this case, the appellant *211 failed to fulfill the conditions of his appearance bond and neglected to keep contact with his attorney, although he knew his trial was imminent. We think a waiver of the right to counsel is inferrable from these omissions. Therefore, we affirm the appellant’s conviction and sentence. Footnotes [1] The bond required his attendance at the next call of the General Sessions Court. It further ordered him to continue to appear until his case was disposed of.