State v. Taylor

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

William Edward Taylor,       
Appellant.

Appeal From York County

John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-021

Submitted November 19, 2003 – Filed
January 15, 2004

AFFIRMED

Chief Attorney Daniel T. Stacey, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Deputy Director for Legal Services Teresa A. Knox, Legal Counsel
Tommy Evans, Jr. and Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  William Edward Taylor appeals the
revocation of his probation, arguing the trial court erred when it considered
his arrest record during the revocation hearing.  We affirm.
[1]

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Taylor was sentenced as a habitual traffic offender
to five years imprisonment suspended to two years imprisonment and three years
probation.  During his probationary sentence, a probation arrest warrant was
issued charging him with failing to follow his agent’s instructions and advice,
failing to report, failing to pay the public defender fund, and failing to pay
his supervision fees.  Taylor admitted the allegations in the warrant were true. 
In asking for mercy from the court, Taylor said he had “pretty much cleaned
up [his] act.”  The court told Taylor it had his NCIC report and to be careful
not to contradict it.  When Taylor later admitted he previously had a drug problem
but that he had “been clean now for awhile, for a couple of years now,” the
court mentioned Taylor’s arrests in multiple jurisdictions while on probation. 
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court revoked Taylor’s probation in full,
reinstating the remainder of his suspended sentence. 

LAW/ANALYSIS

Taylor argues the court erred in considering his arrest
record in imposing the maximum revocation.  We find no error. 

Probation is a matter of grace, rather than a right
and revocation is a means to enforce the terms of probation.  State v. Hamilton,
333 S.C. 642, 648, 511 S.E.2d 94, 97 (Ct. App. 1999).  The decision to revoke
probation is addressed to the circuit court’s discretion.  State v. Lee,
350 S.C. 125, 129, 564 S.E.2d 372, 374 (Ct. App. 2002).  This court will not
reverse the circuit court’s revocation of probation unless the decision was
influenced by an error of law, lacked evidentiary support, or constituted an
abuse of discretion.  Taylor admitted to violating several terms of his probation. 
State v. Knapp, 338 S.C. 541, 543, 526 S.E.2d 741, 742 (Ct. App. 2000). 
Thus, the revocation clearly has evidentiary support. 

Additionally, the court’s decision does not appear
to have been an abuse of discretion or the product of a legal error.  Although
the court mentioned Taylor’s arrest record, it did not do so until after it
had already made the determination on the record that the violations that Taylor
readily admitted to were substantial.  The court did not mention the arrests
when it announced its decision on revocation.  Our reading of the record does
not indicate the court considered any improper matters in its decision to revoke
Taylor’s probationary sentence in full. 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, STILWELL, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

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