State v. Gordon, Billy

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.

Billy Joe Gordon, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-277 

Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 19, 2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

John Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Billy Joe
Gordon pled guilty to driving under the influence and being a habitual traffic
offender.  Gordon was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and a $3,800 fine,
suspended upon the service of six months, a payment of $2,100, and five years'
probation. Gordon's probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to two-and-a-half
years' imprisonment.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities: 

1. As to whether the probation court
abused its discretion in revoking Gordon's probation without first finding a
willful violation and a sufficient evidentiary basis: State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 648, 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding an issue
must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for
appellate review). 

2. As to whether the probation
court violated Gordon's substantive due process rights by imposing  a longer
sentence than originally imposed by the sentencing judge: State v. Passamore, 363 S.C. 568, 585, 611
S.E.2d 273, 282 (Ct. App. 2005) (finding "that a challenge to sentencing must be
raised at trial, or the issue will not be preserved for appellate review")
(quotations and citation omitted). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS,
JJ., concur.

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