State v. Culbertson

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.

Clarence
Culbertson, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

Charles B. Simmons, Jr., Special Circuit
Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-505

Submitted October 1, 2011 – Filed November
15, 2011

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda
Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Clarence Culbertson appeals the circuit court's order revoking his
probation, arguing the circuit court erred by relying, in part, on irrelevant
and unsubstantiated sex offender information.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and
the following authority:  State v. Hicks, 387 S.C. 378, 379, 692 S.E.2d
919, 920 (2010) ("Where the ruling of the trial judge is based on more
than one ground, an appellate court must affirm unless the appellant appeals
all grounds upon which the ruling was based.").   

AFFIRMED.

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

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