State v. Ford

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.

Eddie Lee Ford, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-288

Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 24, 2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Assistant Chief Legal Counsel J. Benjamin
Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Eddie
Lee Ford appeals his probation revocation, arguing the trial court erred in
revoking his probation because his violation was not found to be willful.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority:  State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 647, 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding an
appellate court's authority to review a probation revocation is confined to
correcting errors of law unless the lack of a legal or evidentiary basis
indicates the circuit judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious); Id. at 649, 511 S.E.2d at 97 ("It is only when probation is revoked solely for
failure to pay fines or restitution that a finding of willfulness is mandatory.").
    

AFFIRMED.

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

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