State v. Chisolm

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Chisolm

DecidedJune 25, 2004

Docket2004-UP-416

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Chisolm (State v. Chisolm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Chisolm, (S.C. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Dansa Chisolm, Appellant.

Appeal From Dorchester County
Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-416
Submitted April 21, 2004 Filed June 25, 2004

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Deputy Director for Legal Services Teresa A. Knox, Legal Counsel Tommy Evans, Jr., Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, and Legal Counsel Lovee M. Watts, South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Dansa Chisolm appeals from an order revoking his community supervision and imposing a one-year term of imprisonment. [1] He claims the revoking judge failed to comply with the community supervision statute when she revoked his community supervision status and required him to serve a one-year term of incarceration for his willful violation of the conditions of supervision. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authority: See State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 648, 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (challenge to validity of probation revocation must be raised to and ruled on by the revocation judge to be preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and BEATTY, JJ. concur.

[1] This case is decided without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Dansa Chisolm, Appellant.

Appeal From Dorchester County
Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-416
Submitted April 21, 2004 Filed June 25, 2004

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Deputy Director for Legal Services Teresa A. Knox, Legal Counsel Tommy Evans, Jr., Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, and Legal Counsel Lovee M. Watts, South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Dansa Chisolm appeals from an order revoking his community supervision and imposing a one-year term of imprisonment. [1] He claims the revoking judge failed to comply with the community supervision statute when she revoked his community supervision status and required him to serve a one-year term of incarceration for his willful violation of the conditions of supervision. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authority: See State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 648, 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (challenge to validity of probation revocation must be raised to and ruled on by the revocation judge to be preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and BEATTY, JJ. concur.

[1] This case is decided without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Chisolm, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-chisolm-scctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack