THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.� IT SHOULD NOT
BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

John M. Anderson,        Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County
Clyde N. Davis, Jr., Special Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-211
Submitted January 29, 2004 � Filed March 25, 2004

AFFIRMED

John M. Anderson, pro se, of Irmo, for Appellant.

Patrick M. Teague, Senior Assistant General Counsel, South Carolina Department of Public Safety, of Blythewood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:� John M. Anderson was convicted in his absence in magistrate�s court for a traffic violation.� The circuit court affirmed the conviction.� We affirm.�

Appellant received a traffic ticket on June 14, 2001 for speeding.� He failed to appear at his scheduled hearing, and was tried in his absence and found guilty.� He received notice of the conviction by mail on April 15, 2002.���On April 24, 2002, Appellant wrote a letter to the traffic court requesting to reopen the case.� Although the motion for a new trial was untimely, the magistrate scheduled a hearing on Appellant�s motion for May 30, 2002.� S.C. Code Ann. � 22-3-1000 (Supp. 2003) (�No motion for a new trial may be heard unless made within five days from the rendering of the judgment�).� Appellant failed to appear for the May 30 hearing, and the motion was denied.

The essence of the appeal to the circuit court and this court is Appellant�s desire for �an opportunity to stand in front of a judge based on the charges brought against [him].�� While we appreciate Appellant�s desire, there is simply no legal basis to afford him relief.� The record establishes that the magistrate�s office provided proper notice of the motion for new trial to Appellant at his correct address. [1] � Assuming Appellant�s receipt of notice of his conviction on April 15, 2002 may be liberally construed as the date of �rendering of the judgment,� his new trial motion would nevertheless be untimely pursuant to Section 22-3-1000.� We additionally note that Appellant�s conclusory brief falls short of the appellate court rules.� Rule 208 (b)(1)(D), SCACR; see also Fields v. Melrose Ltd. P�ship, 312 S.C. 102, 106, 439 S.E.2d 283, 285 (Ct. App. 1993) (stating that an issue is deemed abandoned on appeal and, therefore, not presented for review, if it is argued in a short, conclusory statement without supporting authority).��

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.� �