State v. Stocker

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.

Zora Stocker, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

 James W. Johnson, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-113

Submitted February 1, 2008 – Filed
February 13, 2008  

AFFIRMED

Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

John Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Zora
Stocker appeals from the revocation of her probation, arguing the circuit court erred by allowing a non-lawyer to
present the State’s case for revoking her 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.[2]

HUFF,
KITTREDGE, and WILLIAMS, concur.

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

[2] After submitting his initial brief, defense counsel
wrote a letter informing our court of the State v. Barlow decision.  In
light of the Barlow decision, counsel requested we review Stocker’s
probation revocation pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967).  However, this request was not accompanied by a petition to be relieved
as counsel.  Accordingly, the appeal proceeded as a non-Anders case.