UP-215 - Ex Parte: Tara Dawn Shurling

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 Ex Parte: Tara Dawn Shurling, Attorney, Appellant, In Re: State of South Carolina, Respondent, v. Bejay Harley, Defendant. Appellate Case No. 2013-001298 Appeal From Richland County L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-215 Submitted March 26, 2015 – Filed April 29, 2015 AFFIRMED Tara Dawn Shurling, of Law Office of Tara Dawn Shurling, PA, of Columbia, for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 longstanding 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.1 THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.