In the Interest of V. F.

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

In the Interest of V. F., a
Minor Under the Age of Seventeen, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

Paul W. Garfinkel, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-365

Submitted June 1, 2009 – Filed June 25, 2009

AFFIRMED

Deputy
Chief Appellate Defender for Capital Appeals Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney
General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh,
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General
Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston,
for Respondent.

PER
CURIAM:  V. F. appeals the family
court's decision to order him to pay $611.17 in restitution following his
convictions of two counts of harassment and one count of trespassing after
notice.  V. F. argues restitution was improper and did far more than restore
the victim because it paid for a security system.  We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Brooks
v. State, 325 S.C. 269, 271, 481 S.E.2d 712, 713 (1997) ("A trial
judge is allowed broad discretion in sentencing within statutory limits."); State v. Gulledge, 326 S.C. 220, 228, 487 S.E.2d 590, 594 (1997) ("[T]he
restitution hearing is part of the sentencing proceeding."); S.C. Code Ann.
§ 17-25-322(B) (2003) (stating the trial court can consider "any burden or
hardship upon the victim as a direct or indirect result of the defendant's
criminal acts" when determining appropriate restitution).

AFFIRMED. [1]

HEARN, C.J., and THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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