State v. Boynton

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Kenneth Boynton,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

Henry F. Floyd, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-604

Submitted August 20, 2003 – Filed October 20, 2003

AFFIRMED

Robert W. Mills, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Deputy Director for Legal Services Theresa A. Knox, Legal
Counsel Tommy Evans, Jr. and Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, all of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Kenneth Boynton was charged
with violating the terms of his probation in that he willfully failed to follow
the advice of his supervising agent, he was in possession of a pistol, he associated
with persons having criminal records, and he has failed to pay both the required
supervision fees and court ordered fees.  The trial judge found by a preponderance
of the evidence that Boynton was in possession of the pistol and in violation
of his probation.  Boynton appealed, and we affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following
authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 24-21-460 (Supp. 1997) (“[T]he court within the
venue of which the violation occurs…may revoke the probation or suspension of
sentence”); State v. Shumate, 276 S.C. 46, 47, 275, S.E.2d 288, 288 (1981)
(“A defendant’s failure to timely object to or seek modification of his sentence
in the trial court precludes him from presenting his objection for the first
time on appeal.”); State v. White, 218 S.C. 130, 135-36, 61 S.E.2d 754,
756 (1950) (stating that review must be determined in accordance with principles
governing exercise of judicial discretion); State v. Lee, 350 S.C. 125,
129, 564 S.E.2d 372, 374 (Ct. App. 2002) (stating, in the context of a probation
revocation hearing, “[a]n issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial
judge to be preserved for appellate review.”); State v. Proctor, 345
S.C. 299, 301, 546 S.E.2d 673, 674 (Ct. App. 2001) (“The determination to revoke
probation is within the discretion of the circuit judge.”); Wilson v. Walker,
340 S.C. 531, 540, 532 S.E.2d. 19, 23 (Ct. App. 2000) (“Deciding whether to
grant or deny a motion for continuance rests within the sound discretion of
the trial court,” and a appellate court will not reverse the trial court absent
a showing of abuse of discretion); State v. Archie, 322 S.C. 135, 136,
470 S.E.2d 380, 381 (Ct. App. 1996) (finding that an appellate court will not
disturb a decision to revoke probation unless the decision was influenced by
an error of law, was without evidentiary support, or constituted an abuse of
discretion).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., ANDERSON and CURETON,
JJ., concur.

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