State v. McAbee

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, Appellant,

v.

Crystal McAbee, Respondent.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

 Gordon G. Cooper, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-154

Heard February 2, 2008 – Filed March 11,
2008  

AFFIRMED

John Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia; and Karen M.
Quimby, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  The
State appeals the circuit court’s order finding additional conditions of
probation imposed by the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services
(the Department) were invalid and unenforceable because the imposition of
conditions would violate the doctrine of separation of powers.  We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority:  State v.
Stevens, 373 S.C. 595, 598, 646 S.E.2d 870, 871-72 (2007) (stating the
Department may not add conditions of probation on probationers because it would
violate the separation of powers doctrine).  We do not address whether the
conditions of probation added by the Department qualify as conditions of
supervision which enhance the judicially imposed conditions because this issue
was not raised at the trial court level.  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 trial court judge to be preserved for appellate
review). 

AFFIRMED.

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