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. Dameon Myers, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002775

Appeal From Georgetown County Larry B. Hyman, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-260 Submitted May 1, 2017 – Filed June 28, 2017

AFFIRMED

Dameon Myers, pro se.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Vann Henry Gunter, Jr., both of Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, II, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Dameon Myers appeals the circuit court's order denying his writ of error coram nobis and a demand for dismissal for failure to state the proper jurisdiction and venue. On appeal, Myers argues the circuit court (1) did not possess judicial power, (2) made a substantive error in denying Loushanda Myers the opportunity to present her petition, (3) acted in excess of its jurisdiction, (4) did not possess lawful and proper jurisdiction to enter a judgment and conviction against him, and (5) cannot decide matters of the United States Constitution.

Initially, we find South Carolina no longer recognizes the writ of error coram nobis. See Rule 60, SCRCP ("Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action."). Further, although the circuit court does have jurisdiction to consider timely post-trial motions, such motions must be made within ten days of the sentence. Here, even if Myers's writ is construed as a Rule 29(a), SCRCP, motion, it was untimely. See Rule 29(a), SCRCP ("Except for motions for new trials based on after-discovered evidence, post-trial motions shall be made within ten (10) days after the imposition of the sentence."). Accordingly, the circuit court's order is AFFIRMED. 1 WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., and LEE, A.J., concur.

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