State v. Cuttino

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.

Jimmy Ott Cuttino, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2010-172386

Appeal From Orangeburg County
Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-227
Submitted April 1, 2013 – Filed May 29, 2013

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Nicole Wetherton, of the South Carolina Department of
Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jimmy Ott Cuttino appeals the revocation of his probation,
arguing the circuit court erred because it revoked his probation solely on the failure
to pay money and imposed a portion of his prison sentence originally suspended
without making a finding on the record that the failure to pay was willful.
Pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, we reverse the revocation of Cuttino's probation
and remand to the circuit court to conduct a revocation hearing in accordance with
the following authorities: State v. Spare, 374 S.C. 264, 268-70, 647 S.E.2d 706,
708-09 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding probation may not be revoked solely for failure to
pay fines, fees, or restitution unless the circuit court makes a finding on the record
that the probationer willfully refused to pay or failed to make a bona fide effort to
pay); State v. Coker, 397 S.C. 244, 723 S.E.2d 619 (Ct. App. 2012) (holding the
circuit court failed to make the requisite findings, and, accordingly, reversing and
remanding to the circuit court with instructions to make the findings required by
Spare, along with findings of fact to support each).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.1

SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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