State v. Holliday

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Adam Holliday, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Anderson County
 J. C. Buddy Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2008-UP-121
Submitted February 1, 2008 – Filed February 19, 2008

---

AFFIRMED

---

Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

John Benjamin Aplin, S.C. Dept. of Probation Parole & Pardon, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Adam Holliday appeals from the revocation of his probation, arguing the circuit court erred by allowing a non-lawyer to present the State’s case for revoking his probation. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Barlow, 372 S.C. 534, 539, 643 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2007) (holding that a probation agent’s presentation of the State’s case in a revocation proceeding does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law);  State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 648, 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (explaining that an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the revocation judge to be preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

---

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