State v. Granstrom

CourtListener 10137123Scctapp27 de ago. de 2003

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

PER CURIAM: Robert McKoy waived presentment on an indictment for possession
of a stolen vehicle, pled guilty, and was sentenc

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Michael Granstrom       
Appellant.

Appeal From Aiken County

James R. Barber, III, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-512 

Submitted July 1, 2003 – Filed August 27, 2003

AFFIRMED

Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey,
Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia; for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM:  Michael Granstrom was charged with larceny in Aiken
County in 1987.  He subsequently pled guilty to this charge and received a ten-year
sentence that was suspended to five years probation.  The probation matter was
supposedly transferred to Georgia; however, when Granstrom reported to Georgia,
they had not yet received his paperwork.  Subsequently, Granstrom was brought
before the court for a probation violation hearing.  The court found that Granstrom
had willfully violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The court
revoked six years of Granstrom’s suspended sentence and terminated his probation. 
This appeal follows. 

We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule
220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Hamilton,
333 S.C. 642, 648, 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (challenge to the validity
of probation revocation must be raised to and ruled upon by the revocation judge
to be preserved for appellate review); State v. Archie, 322 S.C. 135,
137, 470 S.E.2d 380, 381 (Ct. App. 1996) (the appellate court “will not disturb
the circuit court's 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.

GOOLSBY, BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ,
concur.

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

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.