State v. Means

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Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-569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.