State v.. McGill

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.

Dante Lamont McGill, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-351

Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 29,
2011   

AFFIRM

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

J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Dante
Lamont McGill appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing the circuit
court erred in revoking probation where the State failed to present an adequate
evidentiary basis for the alleged violations.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v.
Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 647, 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) ("The
decision to revoke probation is addressed to the discretion of the circuit
judge.  This court's authority to review such a
decision is confined to correcting errors of law unless the lack of a legal or
evidentiary basis indicates the circuit [court]'s decision was arbitrary and
capricious." (citations omitted)); State v. Lee, 350 S.C. 125, 131-132, 564 S.E.2d 372, 376 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding that there was a "sufficient factual basis
to support the revocation" when appellant admitted to violating the
conditions of his probation).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J.,
HUFF, J., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.

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