State v. Kirk

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.

Marcus Kirk, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

 Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-512

Submitted September 2, 2008 – Filed
September 8, 2008

AFFIRMED

Appellate
Defender Lanelle C. Durant, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense,
Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

 J. Benjamin Aplin, Legal Counsel, South Carolina Department of
Probation, Parole and Pardon Services,  of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Marcus Kirk appeals the circuit court’s
ordering global positioning satellite (GPS) electronic monitoring for the
remainder of his life due to his probation violation.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  section 23-3-540(D) of the South Carolina Code (Supp.
2006) (providing the court may order a person who is required to register because of a guilty plea
to criminal sexual conduct with a minor, second degree, and who violates a term of probation be monitored by
a electronic monitoring device); section
23-3-540(H) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2006) (providing the person shall be monitored by the Department of
Probation, Parole and Pardon Services with an active electronic monitoring
device for the duration of the time the person is required to remain on the sex
offender registry and may petition for release beginning ten years from the
date the person began to be electronically monitored).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
THOMAS and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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