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.

Bobbie Fleming Ford, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

Gordon G. Cooper, Acting Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-155 

Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed March
7, 2012

AFFIRMED

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

J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Bobbie
Fleming Ford appeals the revocation of her probation.  On appeal, Ford argues
the circuit court abused its discretion in revoking her probation because the
revocation was without evidentiary support.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and
the following authority: State v.
Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 647, 511
S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) ("The decision to revoke probation is
addressed to the discretion of the circuit [court].  This court's authority to
review such a decision is confined to correcting errors of law unless the lack
of a legal or evidentiary basis indicates the circuit [court]'s decision was
arbitrary and capricious." (citations omitted)); id. at 648, 511
S.E.2d at 97 ("[T]he authority of the revoking court should always be
predicated upon an evidentiary showing of fact tending to establish a violation
of the conditions."). 

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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