State v. Shane Taylor

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.

Shane Taylor, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-520

Submitted November 2, 2009 – Filed
November 19, 2009

Affirmed

Senior Appellate Defender, Joseph Savitz,
III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Assistant Chief Legal Counsel, J. Benjamin
Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Shane Taylor appeals the revocation of
his probation arguing the trial court "erred by revoking [his] probation
simply because he was homeless, as the status of homelessness as a basis for
incarceration violates the Fourteenth Amendment."  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the
following authorities: State v. Sweet, 374 S.C. 1, 5, 647 S.E.2d 202, 205 (2007) ("To
properly preserve an issue for review there must be a contemporaneous objection
that is ruled upon by the trial court."); State v. Hamilton, 333
S.C. 642, 648-49, 511 S.E.2d 94, 97 (Ct. App. 1999) ("[B]efore
revoking probation, the [trial court] must determine if
there is sufficient evidence to establish that the probationer has violated his
probation conditions.").

Affirmed.

Hearn, C.J., Huff, and Geathers, J.J., concur.

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