State v. Baesher

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.

Matthew John
Baesher, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-421

Submitted September 1, 2009 – Filed
September 3, 2009   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Assistant Chief Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Matthew
John Baesher appeals his probation revocation, arguing the trial court erred in
revoking his probation and imposing GPS monitoring on him.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR,
and the following authorities:  State
v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 647, 511
S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding an appellate court's authority to review
a probation revocation is confined to correcting errors of law unless the lack
of legal or evidentiary basis indicates the circuit judge's decision was
arbitrary and capricious); S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-540(C) (Supp. 2008) (stating a
court must order active electronic monitoring for a person who is required to
register as a sex offender for committing or attempting a lewd act upon a child
under sixteen and violates a term of his probation).     

AFFIRMED.[1]

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

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