State v. Odom

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.

Phillip Keith
Odom, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

 Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-105

Submitted February 1, 2008 – Filed
February 12, 2008   

AFFIRMED

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

John Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Phillip Keith Odom appeals from the
revocation of his probation, arguing the
circuit court erred by allowing a non-lawyer to present the State’s case for revoking
his probation. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v.
Barlow, 372 S.C. 534, 539, 643 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2007) (holding that a
probation agent’s presentation of the State’s case in a revocation proceeding does
not constitute the unauthorized practice of law); State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 648, 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (explaining that
an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the revocation judge to be
preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
KITTREDGE, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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