CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS ON OCTOBER 1, 2018
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CLAY
COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA THE HONORABLE KASEY SORENSEN Judge
CREIGHTON A. THURMAN Attorney for respondent Yankton, South
Dakota and appellant.
RENEE WEGNER Beresford, South Dakota Pro se petitioner.
ZINTER, JUSTICE 
A defendant appeals a protection order entered in magistrate
court. Because this Court does not have appellate
jurisdiction to consider this direct appeal from magistrate
court, we dismiss.
and Procedural History
In December 2017, Amber Wegner sought a protection order
against Scott Siemers. At the hearing in magistrate court,
Wegner appeared pro se, and Siemers was represented by
counsel. After considering both parties' testimony, the
court found Siemers "[w]illfully, maliciously, or
repeatedly harassed [Wegner] by means of any verbal,
electronic, digital media, mechanical, telegraphic, or
written communication." See SDCL 22-19A-1(3)
(defining stalking). The court issued an order of protection
effective for three years. Thereafter, counsel asked, "I
would assume, since this is in magistrate court, that the
appeal chain is circuit court and then up the line?" The
court replied, "Correct."
Siemers did not appeal the magistrate court's decision to
the circuit court; he has appealed to this Court. He contends
the magistrate court clearly erred and abused its discretion
in granting the protection order.
"This Court has only such appellate jurisdiction as may
be provided by the legislature. The right to appeal is
statutory and therefore does not exist in the absence of a
statute permitting it." State v. Schwaller,
2006 S.D. 30, ¶ 5, 712 N.W.2d 869, 871 (internal
quotations marks omitted); accord State v.
Sharpfish, 2018 S.D. 63, ¶ 14, 917 N.W.2d 21, 23.
SDCL 15-26A-60 requires the jurisdictional statement in an
appellant's brief to show "that the order sought to
be reviewed is appealable." Siemers does not identify
any authority upon which this Court has appellate
jurisdiction to consider his direct appeal from magistrate
court. If a question of appellate jurisdiction exists, we are
required to take notice of the question regardless of a
party's failure to raise it. Schwaller, 2006
S.D. 30, ¶ 5, 712 N.W.2d at 871.
"A magistrate court with a magistrate judge presiding
has concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit courts to try
and determine any action for a protective or restraining
order or injunctive relief pursuant to chapter 22-19A, 25-10,
or 21-65." SDCL 16-12B-13. There is also a limited right
to appeal. "Unless appeal is denied by law, there is a
right of appeal to the circuit court from any final
order or judgment of the magistrate court with a magistrate
judge presiding[.]" SDCL 16-12B-16 (emphasis added);
accord SDCL 16-12A-27.1. Accordingly, Siemers had a
right to appeal the magistrate court's order to the
circuit court, but we see no statutory authority to appeal
directly to this Court.
We have previously recognized that appellate jurisdiction
from a magistrate court's decision is limited to the
circuit court. Dale v. City of Sioux Falls, 2003
S.D. 124, ¶ 8, 670 N.W.2d 892, 895; Schwaller,
2006 S.D. 30, ¶ 8, 712 N.W.2d at 871. "[W]ith the
one exception provided by SDCL 23A-32-5 (appeals by the State
from certain pre-trial orders of a circuit court or
magistrate), there is no right of direct appeal from
magistrate court to the Supreme Court."State v.
Hoxeng, 315 N.W.2d 308, 309 (S.D. 1982). We must
therefore dismiss. "[W]hen a party fails to pursue the
only appeal ...