In the Interest of V. F.

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: June 25, 2009
• Docket: 2009-UP-365
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

In the Interest of V. F., a Minor Under the Age of Seventeen, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Charleston County
Paul W. Garfinkel, Family Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-365
Submitted June 1, 2009 – Filed June 25, 2009

---

AFFIRMED

---

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender for Capital Appeals Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  V. F. appeals the family court's decision to order him to pay $611.17 in restitution following his convictions of two counts of harassment and one count of trespassing after notice.  V. F. argues restitution was improper and did far more than restore the victim because it paid for a security system.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Brooks v. State, 325 S.C. 269, 271, 481 S.E.2d 712, 713 (1997) ("A trial judge is allowed broad discretion in sentencing within statutory limits."); State v. Gulledge, 326 S.C. 220, 228, 487 S.E.2d 590, 594 (1997) ("[T]he restitution hearing is part of the sentencing proceeding."); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-25-322(B) (2003) (stating the trial court can consider "any burden or hardship upon the victim as a direct or indirect result of the defendant's criminal acts" when determining appropriate restitution).

AFFIRMED. [1]

HEARN, C.J., and THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

---

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