State v. Culp

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.

Frank Anthony
Culp, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-049 

Submitted January 3, 2012 – Filed January
25, 2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A.
Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Frank
Anthony Culp appeals the circuit court's order revoking his probation and
reinstating in full the original suspended sentences.  He argues the circuit
court abused its discretion because a lesser sentence would have been suitable
given the nature of his violation.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Lee,
350 S.C 125, 130, 564 S.E.2d 372, 375 (Ct. App. 2002) ("An issue must be
raised to and ruled upon by the [circuit court] to be preserved for appellate
review."); State v. Shumate, 276 S.C. 46, 46-47, 275 S.E.2d 288,
288 (1981) (holding not preserved for review an appellant's challenge of the circuit
court's authority "to revoke in the manner prescribed [his] probationary
sentence previously imposed and admittedly violated" where appellant did
not "object to or seek modification of the revocation sentence in the [circuit]
court"). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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