State v.. McGill

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: June 29, 2011
• Docket: 2011-UP-351
• Status: Unpublished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

The State, Respondent,

v.

Dante Lamont McGill, Appellant.

---

Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-351
Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 29, 2011   

---

AFFIRM

---

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Dante Lamont McGill appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing the circuit court erred in revoking probation where the State failed to present an adequate evidentiary basis for the alleged violations.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 647, 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) ("The decision to revoke probation is addressed to the discretion of the circuit judge.  This court's authority to review such a decision is confined to correcting errors of law unless the lack of a legal or evidentiary basis indicates the circuit [court]'s decision was arbitrary and capricious." (citations omitted)); State v. Lee, 350 S.C. 125, 131-132, 564 S.E.2d 372, 376 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding that there was a "sufficient factual basis to support the revocation" when appellant admitted to violating the conditions of his probation).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., HUFF, J., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.

---

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