State v. David M. Lambert

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.

David Minor Lambert, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2023-001547

Appeal From Richland County
Jocelyn Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-107
Submitted March 20, 2025 – Filed March 26, 2025

AFFIRMED

Makenzie Autumn Thomas and Constantine George
Pournaras, both of the Richland County Public
Defender's Office, of Columbia, for Appellant.

General Counsel Matthew C. Buchanan, of the South
Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon
Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: David Lambert appeals the circuit court's orders denying his
motion to dismiss his probation arrest warrant and determining that he was
required to remain on probation. On appeal, Lambert argues the circuit court erred
by finding that the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon
Services (SCDPPPS) may close a community supervision program (CSP) case as
unsuccessful and impose residual probation due to unpaid restitution. We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold the circuit court did not err in finding Lambert did not successfully
complete CSP when he failed to pay court-ordered restitution. See State v. Baccus,
367 S.C. 41, 48, 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In criminal cases, the appellate
court sits to review errors of law only."); id. ("This [c]ourt is bound by the trial
court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous."). Lambert pled guilty to
voluntary manslaughter in 2015 and was sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment
provided that upon the service of seven years, the balance would be suspended to
five years' probation; he was also required to pay restitution as a condition of his
sentence. In 2018, Lambert was released to a term of CSP with restitution
payments as a condition of CSP. In 2020, SCDPPPS found Lambert's CSP ended
unsuccessfully due to his failure to pay restitution, and it initiated his term of
probation. Because Lambert failed to pay restitution, a violation of his CSP, the
circuit court did not err in finding he failed to successfully complete CSP, and it
properly found he could remain on probation. See S.C. Code Ann. § 24-21-560(A)
(2025) ("[A]ny sentence for a 'no parole offense' . . . must include any term of
incarceration and completion of a community supervision program operated by
[SCDPPPS]."); S.C. Code Ann. § 24-21-560(E) (2025) ("A prisoner who
successfully completes a community supervision program pursuant to this section
has satisfied his sentence and must be discharged from his sentence."); State v.
Dawkins, 352 S.C. 162, 167, 573 S.E.2d 783, 785 (2002) (holding that an inmate's
entire sentence, "including probation, is discharged upon successful completion of
the CSP" (emphasis in original)); State v. Picklesimer, 388 S.C. 264, 270, 695
S.E.2d 845, 848 (2010) ("'[S]uccessful completion' of CSP connotes the
completion of a maximum of two continuous years of CSP . . . without any
violations or revocations, or a determination by the Department that a defendant
has fulfilled his CSP responsibilities prior to two years' service in the program"
(emphasis added)); S.C. Code Ann. § 24-21-560(B) (2025) (stating SCDPPPS is
responsible for determining when a prisoner completes CSP and when a prisoner
violates a term of CSP); Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 669 (1983) ("A
defendant's poverty in no way immunizes him from punishment"); State v.
Garrard, 390 S.C. 146, 150, 700 S.E.2d 269, 272 (Ct. App. 2010) (explaining that
to revoke CSP, SCDPPPS must show "the voluntary and intentional failure to do
something known to be required by a term of community supervision").1

AFFIRMED. 2

WILLIAMS, C.J., and GEATHERS and TURNER, JJ., concur.

1
To the extent Lambert argues his current sentence calculation is incorrect, we
hold this argument is not preserved for appellate review because it was not raised
to the circuit court. See State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693
(2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have
been raised to and ruled upon by the [circuit court].").
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.