State v. Kirk

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.

Maurice Kirk, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2008-UP-419

Submitted June 1, 2008 – Filed July 21,
2008

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, South Carolina Commission on
Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Assistant Chief Legal Counsel John Benjamin Aplin, South Carolina
Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Maurice
Kirk appeals the revocation of his probation.  Specifically, Kirk claims the
court erred in revoking his probation because the terms of probation were
imposed by the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, not by the
sentencing judge.  Kirk did not object to the allegations he violated the
conditions of his probation, told the court “he just wants to serve his time,”
and did not object to court’s decision to revoke his probation.  We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Lee,
350 S.C. 125, 129-30, 564 S.E.2d 372, 374-75 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding an issue
must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for
appellate review).[1]

AFFIRMED.

HEARN,
C.J., and SHORT and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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