State v. Hannah

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.

Marty Hannah, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

 Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-112

Submitted February 1, 2008 – Filed
February 13, 2008 

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle C. Durant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

John Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Marty Hannah appeals from the revocation
of his probation, arguing the circuit
court erred by allowing a non-lawyer to present the State’s case for revoking
his probation.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v.
Barlow, 372 S.C. 534, 539, 643 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2007) (holding that a
probation agent’s presentation of the State’s case in a revocation proceeding
does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law); State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 648, 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (explaining that
an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the revocation judge to be
preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
KITTREDGE, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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