Opinion
Appellate Case No. 2013-001298 Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-215
04-29-2015
Ex Parte: Tara Dawn Shurling, Attorney, Appellant, In Re: State of South Carolina, Respondent, v. Bejay Harley, Defendant.
Tara Dawn Shurling, of Law Office of Tara Dawn Shurling, PA, of Columbia, for Appellant. James Hugh Ryan III, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Respondent.
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. Appeal From Richland County
L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge
AFFIRMED
Tara Dawn Shurling, of Law Office of Tara Dawn Shurling, PA, of Columbia, for Appellant. James Hugh Ryan III, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Tara Dawn Shurling appeals the circuit court's order denying her additional attorney's fees in excess of $10,000 and limiting her reimbursement for general expenses to $750. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Ex Parte Shurling, 408 S.C. 309, 312 n.6, 759 S.E.2d 714, 715 n.6 (2014) (declining to reach appellant's statutory construction argument regarding the Indigent Defense Act because the clear language of the circuit court's funding order was controlling in the case); Ex Parte Brown, 393 S.C. 214, 220, 711 S.E.2d 899, 902 (2011) (stating an award of attorney's fees in excess of the statutory cap set forth in section 17-3-50 of the South Carolina Code (2014) is within the sound discretion of the circuit court); Charleston Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Father, 317 S.C. 283, 288, 454 S.E.2d 307, 310 (1995) ("There is a long-standing rule in this State that one judge of the same court cannot overrule another."); Bailey v. State, 309 S.C. 455, 464, 424 S.E.2d 503, 508 (1992) ("[A] determination of an attorney's costs and expenses for trial preparation shall also be made within the discretion of the trial judge."). AFFIRMED. THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.