State v. Tice

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Tice

DecidedNovember 5, 2014

Docket2014-UP-370

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Tice (State v. Tice) 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. Tice, (S.C. Ct. App. 2014).

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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Joseph Charles Tice, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-001161

Appeal From Lexington County R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-370 Heard August 1, 2014 – Filed November 5, 2014

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Appellate Defender Benjamin John Tripp, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Matthew Buchanan and J. Benjamin Aplin, both of the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole & Pardon Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Reversed and remanded pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Coker, 397 S.C. 244, 245, 723 S.E.2d 619, 620 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[A] court may not revoke probation solely on the basis of the failure to pay money unless the court makes certain findings of fact regarding the willfulness of the failure to pay." (citing Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 672 (1983))); Coker, 397 S.C. at 245-46, 723 S.E.2d at 620 (noting when revoking probation based solely on the basis of a failure to pay money, the circuit court must make the following findings on the record: (1) the State presented sufficient evidence indicating the probationer violated the terms of his probation; (2) the probationer willfully failed to pay in that he either had the funds to make payment and chose not to or lacked the funds to make payment and did not make a bona fide effort to acquire the funds; and (3) "alternate measures are not adequate to meet the State's interests in punishment and deterrence"); id. (reversing when the circuit court failed to make the required findings while revoking probation solely on the basis of a failure to pay money).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.1

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

1 We decide this case 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. 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.

Joseph Charles Tice, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-001161

Appeal From Lexington County R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-370 Heard August 1, 2014 – Filed November 5, 2014

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Appellate Defender Benjamin John Tripp, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Matthew Buchanan and J. Benjamin Aplin, both of the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole & Pardon Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Reversed and remanded pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Coker, 397 S.C. 244, 245, 723 S.E.2d 619, 620 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[A] court may not revoke probation solely on the basis of the failure to pay money unless the court makes certain findings of fact regarding the willfulness of the failure to pay." (citing Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 672 (1983))); Coker, 397 S.C. at 245-46, 723 S.E.2d at 620 (noting when revoking probation based solely on the basis of a failure to pay money, the circuit court must make the following findings on the record: (1) the State presented sufficient evidence indicating the probationer violated the terms of his probation; (2) the probationer willfully failed to pay in that he either had the funds to make payment and chose not to or lacked the funds to make payment and did not make a bona fide effort to acquire the funds; and (3) "alternate measures are not adequate to meet the State's interests in punishment and deterrence"); id. (reversing when the circuit court failed to make the required findings while revoking probation solely on the basis of a failure to pay money).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.1

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Tice, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tice-scctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack