State v. Jordan

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.

Norwood Lee
Jordan, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

William H. Seals, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-486

Submitted October 1, 2011 – Filed October
31, 2011   

AFFIRMED

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

J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Norwood Lee Jordan appeals the circuit
court's order revoking his probation, arguing the circuit court erred (1) in
revoking twenty years of his sentence; (2) in finding Jordan was barred from
raising the issue of whether he remained on probation; and (3) in finding
Jordan remained on probation.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the
circuit court erred in revoking twenty years of Jordan's sentence:  In re
McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 92, 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) ("A bald
assertion, without supporting argument, does not preserve an issue for
appeal."); Hunt v. S.C. Forestry Comm'n, 358 S.C. 564, 573, 595
S.E.2d 846, 851 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Issues raised in a brief but not
supported by authority are deemed abandoned and will not be considered on
appeal.").

2. As to whether the
circuit court erred in finding Jordan was barred from raising the issue of
whether he remained on probation:  Carolina Renewal, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of
Transp., 385 S.C. 550, 554, 684 S.E.2d 779, 782 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Collateral
estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating an
issue that was decided in a previous action, regardless of whether the claims
in the first and subsequent lawsuits are the same.").

3. As to whether the
circuit court erred in finding Jordan remained on probation:  State v.
Bryant, 383 S.C. 410, 418, 680 S.E.2d 11, 15 (Ct. App. 2009) (holding an
issue not raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court revoking probation was
not preserved for review).

AFFIRMED.[2]

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

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

[2] Prior to our receipt of the final brief in this case,
the South Carolina Supreme Court published a case with nearly identical facts
and issues.  SeeState v.
Picklesimer, 388 S.C. 264, 695 S.E.2d
845 (2010).  On appeal, Jordan does not brief Picklesimer; therefore,
these issues may be appropriate for a post-conviction relief proceeding.