State v. Aldridge

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.

Jerome
Aldridge, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-420

Submitted September 1, 2009 – Filed
September 3, 2009   

AFFIRMED

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

John Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jerome Aldridge appeals the revocation of
his probation, arguing the probation court's decision to revoke his probation
was without evidentiary support and constituted a denial of due process.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Crouch, 355 S.C. 355, 359, 585 S.E.2d 288, 291 (2003) (holding this court will
only reverse the decision to revoke probation when the decision is based on an error
of law or lacks supporting evidence); State
v. Conyers, 326 S.C. 263, 266, 487 S.E.2d 181, 183 (1997) (stating an issue must be raised and ruled upon in the circuit
court in order to be preserved for appellate review); State v. White,
218 S.C. 130, 135-36, 61 S.E.2d 754, 756 (1950) (explaining the decision to
revoke probation is addressed to the discretion of the trial court); State
v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 648, 511 S.E.2d 94, 97 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Probation
is a matter of grace; revocation is the means to enforce the conditions of
probation."); Id. at 648, 511 S.E.2d at 97 ("[T]he authority
of the revoking court should always be predicated upon an evidentiary showing
of fact tending to establish a violation of the conditions.").

AFFIRMED.

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

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