State v. McAbee

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. McAbee

DecidedMarch 11, 2008

Docket2008-UP-154

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. McAbee (State v. McAbee) 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. McAbee, (S.C. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

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, Appellant,

v.

Crystal McAbee, Respondent.

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Gordon G. Cooper, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-154
Heard February 2, 2008 Filed March 11, 2008

AFFIRMED

John Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia; and Karen M. Quimby, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: The State appeals the circuit courts order finding additional conditions of probation imposed by the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services (the Department) were invalid and unenforceable because the imposition of conditions would violate the doctrine of separation of powers. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Stevens, 373 S.C. 595, 598, 646 S.E.2d 870, 871-72 (2007) (stating the Department may not add conditions of probation on probationers because it would violate the separation of powers doctrine). We do not address whether the conditions of probation added by the Department qualify as conditions of supervision which enhance the judicially imposed conditions because this issue was not raised at the trial court level. 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 trial court judge to be preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

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

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

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, Appellant,

v.

Crystal McAbee, Respondent.

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Gordon G. Cooper, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-154
Heard February 2, 2008 Filed March 11, 2008

AFFIRMED

John Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia; and Karen M. Quimby, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: The State appeals the circuit courts order finding additional conditions of probation imposed by the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services (the Department) were invalid and unenforceable because the imposition of conditions would violate the doctrine of separation of powers. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Stevens, 373 S.C. 595, 598, 646 S.E.2d 870, 871-72 (2007) (stating the Department may not add conditions of probation on probationers because it would violate the separation of powers doctrine). We do not address whether the conditions of probation added by the Department qualify as conditions of supervision which enhance the judicially imposed conditions because this issue was not raised at the trial court level. 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 trial court judge to be preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. McAbee, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcabee-scctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack