¶1 Appellant contends that the trial judge erred in proceeding with his trial in absentia. We agree.
¶2 The trial judge failed to find that appellant had received notice of his right to be present at trial and a warning that he would be tried in his absence should he fail to attend, as required by Criminal Practice Rule 3. This was an error. State v. Jackson, 288 S. C. 94, 341 S. E. (2d) 375 (1986); State v. Fleming, 287 S. C. 268, 335 S. E. (2d) 814 (Ct. App. 1985). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
¶3 Reversed and remanded.