State v. Hall

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.

Terry Hall, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002066

Appeal From Cherokee County
R. Keith Kelly, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-133
Submitted February 1, 2016 – Filed March 16, 2016

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

General Counsel Matthew C. Buchanan, of South
Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon
Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Terry Hall appeals an order revoking his probation and
reinstating a twelve-year sentence for second-degree attempted burglary. On
appeal, Hall argues the circuit court (1) erred in revoking his probation based on
two alleged convictions and an alleged arrest when the State did not present
evidence to support those allegations and (2) did not have jurisdiction over Hall
when the warrant for violating probation was issued. We affirm.

The State presented sufficient evidence for the circuit court to find Hall violated a
condition of his probation. See State v. Allen, 370 S.C. 88, 94, 634 S.E.2d 653,
655 (2006) ("The [probation] court must determine whether the State has presented
sufficient evidence to establish that a probationer has violated the conditions of his
probation."); State v. Lee, 350 S.C. 125, 131, 564 S.E.2d 372, 375 (Ct. App. 2002)
("Once the determination is made that a probationer has violated the conditions of
his probation, the circuit [court] can require the probationer to serve all or a portion
of the sentence originally imposed."). During the probation revocation hearing,
Robert Ellis and Jeff Elmore testified they observed Hall with firearms on two
separate occasions, which violated condition four of Hall's probation. The
violation of condition four was sufficient for the circuit court to revoke Hall's
probation; thus, we decline to consider whether evidence supported the additional
revocation grounds. See State v. Williamson, 356 S.C. 507, 512, 589 S.E.2d 787,
789 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Having decided that the trial court did not err when it
revoked Williamson's probation because of the CDVHAN charge, we need not
address the additional revocation grounds.").1

Additionally, the circuit court had jurisdiction to revoke Hall's probation. The
sentencing sheet for the 2008 offense provided probation would be tolled until Hall
completed his six-year reinstated sentence for the 2004 offense. See State v. Lee,
350 S.C. 125, 132, 564 S.E.2d 372, 376 (Ct. App. 2002) (finding when the
sentencing sheet indicated the defendant's probation would begin upon completion
of his prior sentence, the defendant's five-year probation began on March 29, 2000,
when he was paroled for a prior offense, and the May 9, 2000 arrest warrant for
violating probation was issued during the probationary period and "conferred
subject matter jurisdiction upon the court"). Thus, the probation period for the
2008 offense began on September 1, 2011, when Hall was released from the six-

1
Hall's due process arguments were not presented to the circuit court and are not
preserved. See State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003)
("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been
raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge."); State v. Owens, 378 S.C. 636, 638-
39, 664 S.E.2d 80, 81 (2008) (finding a due process argument was not preserved
when it was not raised to the trial court).
year reinstated sentence, and the August 8, 2014 probation arrest warrant was
issued during the five-year probation period. Accordingly, the circuit court had
jurisdiction to revoke probation.

AFFIRMED.2

FEW, C.J., SHORT and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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