Case Name: The STATE, Respondent, v. Clifford BRANTLEY, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1983-07-12
Citations: 279 S.C. 215
Docket Number: 21951
Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. Clifford BRANTLEY, Appellant.
Judges: Lewis, C. J., and Littlejohn and Harwell, JJ., concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 279
Pages: 215–219

Head Matter:
21951
The STATE, Respondent, v. Clifford BRANTLEY, Appellant.
(305 S. E. (2d) 234)
Deputy Atty. Gen. C. Tolbert Goolsby, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. Robert D. Cook and Joseph C. Coleman, Columbia, for appellant.
Staff Atty. Carolyn M. Adams, Columbia, and Sol. Randolph Murdaugh, Jr., Hampton, for respondent.
July 12, 1983.

Opinion:
Ness, Justice:
Appellant Clifford Brantley, Sheriff of Jasper County, was held in contempt of court for failure to appear and testify in Hampton County. Appellant asserts the trial court had no jurisdiction over him and thus lacked authority to hold him in contempt. We disagree and affirm.
The trial judge was presiding over a guilty plea proceeding in Hampton County. Upon being advised the defendant had records in Jasper County, the jucge asked the solicitor's office to notify Sheriff Brantley to appear in court with the records at 2:30 that afternoon.
The sheriff chose not to appear, but sent a deputy with the requested records. The trial judge told the deputy he wanted Sheriff Brantley's presence immediately, but when the sheriff could not be found, he instructed the deputy to "pass the word along to Sheriff Brantley that I want him in court tomorrow morning by 9:30 without fail." The sheriff again failed to appear, explaining later he was busy investigating a shooting. After a full hearing on the merits, the trial court adjudged him in contempt for wilfully and unlawfully failing to obey a court order.
"The power to punish for contempts is inherent in all courts. Its existence is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of the judgments, orders and writs of the courts; and consequently to the due administration of justice."
State, ex rel. McLeod v. Hite, 272 S. C. 303, 305, 251 S. E. (2d) 746, 747 (1979), quoting Ex Parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505, 510, 86 U. S. 505, 22 L. Ed. 205, 207.
A trial court has the inherent " 'power to protect itself from indignities and to enable it effectively to administer its judicial functions.' " State, ex rel. McLeod v. Hite, supra, at page 306, 251 S. E. (2d) 746; State v. Weinberg, 229 S. C. 286, 92 S. E. (2d) 842 (1956).
Appellant contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the trial court ordered the sheriff to appear ex parte, did not issue a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, and because he was sheriff in an adjoining county rather than the county where court was being held.
We find these contentions are without merit. Appellant concedes he had actual notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard. Moreover, since deputies are authorized agents of sheriffs, appellant waived any jurisdictional objection by sending his deputy. Willis, et al. v. Aiken County, 203 S. C. 96, 26 S. E. (2d) 313 (1943).
We hold when the subpoena serves "no purpose other than as a notice to appear" and the appellant admits he received the notice to appear on three occasions, he was in contempt of court in failing to comply. The court's order was valid, was directed to appellant in his official capacity as an officer of the court, and his wilful failure to comply constituted a constructive contempt of court, which tended to "obstruct and embarrass or prevent the due administration of justice." Long v. McMillan, et al., 226 S. C. 598, 609, 86 S. E. (2d) 477 (1955).
Affirmed.
Lewis, C. J., and Littlejohn and Harwell, JJ., concur.
Gregory, J., dissents.