State v. Means

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: September 30, 2003
• Docket: 2003-UP-569
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

George Odell Means,        Appellant.

---

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Gary E. Clary, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-569
Submitted July 15, 2003 – Filed September 30, 2003

---

AFFIRMED

---

Chief Attorney Daniel T. Stacey, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Deputy Director for Legal Services Theresa A. Knox, Legal Counsel Tommy Evans, Jr. and Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: George Odell Means appeals from the revocation of his probation, arguing the trial court did not have enough information before it to find that he willfully violated the terms of his probation.  We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 24-21-460 (Supp. 1997) (“[T]he court within the venue of which the violation occurs…may revoke the probation or suspension of sentence”);  State v. Conyers, 326 S.C. 263, 266, 487 S.E.2d 181, 183 (1997) (holding that an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by trial judge to be preserved for appellate review); State v. White, 218 S.C. 130, 135-36, 61 S.E.2d 754, 756 (1950) (stating that review must be determined in accordance with principles governing exercise of judicial discretion); State v. Proctor, 345 S.C. 299, 301, 546 S.E.2d 673, 674 (Ct. App. 2001)(finding the decision to revoke probation is addressed to the discretion of the circuit judge); State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 649, 511 S.E.2d 94, 97 (Ct. App. 1999)(holding a finding of willfulness at a probation violation hearing is mandatory only when revocation is based solely on the defendant’s failure to pay fines or restitution); State v. Archie, 322 S.C. 135, 136, 470 S.E.2d 380, 381 (Ct. App. 1996)(stating this court will not disturb a decision to revoke probation unless the decision was influenced by an error of law, was without evidentiary support, or constituted an abuse of discretion).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., CONNOR and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.

---

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