State v. Chisolm

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

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,       
Respondent,

v.

Dansa Chisolm,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Dorchester County

Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-416

Submitted April 21, 2004 – Filed June 25, 2004

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Deputy Director for Legal Services Teresa A. Knox, Legal Counsel
Tommy Evans, Jr., Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, and Legal Counsel Lovee M.
Watts, South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, all
of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Dansa Chisolm appeals from
an order revoking his community supervision and imposing a one-year term of
imprisonment. [1]   He claims the revoking judge failed to comply
with the community supervision statute when she revoked his community supervision
status and required him to serve a one-year term of incarceration for his willful
violation of the conditions of supervision.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2),
SCACR and the following authority: See State v. Hamilton, 333
S.C. 642, 648, 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (challenge to validity of probation
revocation must be raised to and ruled on by the revocation judge to be preserved
for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and BEATTY, JJ. concur.

[1]   This case is decided without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215,
SCACR.