State v. Riggsbee

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.

Phoenix Riggsbee, Appellant.

Appeal From Darlington County

 J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-019

Submitted January 1, 2006 – Filed January 11, 2006   

AFFIRMED

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

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

PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from a revocation of Phoenix Riggsbee’s probation.[1]  Riggsbee, with the benefit of counsel, admitted his probation violations.  The circuit court initially revoked four years, but increased it to a full revocation—five years—when Riggsbee “mumble[ed]” some expression of displeasure with the four-year revocation.  On appeal, Riggsbee challenges the modified sentence, arguing that the court exceeded its authority by adding an additional year to his sentence.  However, there was neither a challenge nor an objection to the modification of the revocation sentence.  Since this issue was not raised in the circuit court, it is not preserved for direct appellate review.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 648, 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (finding that to preserve a challenge to a probation revocation, the issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court).[2]

AFFIRMED.

STILWELL, KITTREDGE, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

[1]  Riggsbee pled guilty to criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature and was sentenced to five years, which was suspended with three years probation.

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