State v. Coker

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 Coker, Appellant.

Appeal From Orangeburg County

Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-127 

Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed
February 29, 2012

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Joseph Coker appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing the
circuit court erred because he did not willfully violate the terms of his
probation and the circuit court failed to make the necessary findings of fact
as to whether the violation was willful.  Pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, we
reverse[1] the revocation of Coker'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. Phillip Coker, Op. No. 4945 (S.C. Ct. App.
filed Feb. 22, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 7 at 33) (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.

FEW, C.J.,
HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.

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