Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-300 - State v. Thomas

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), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals


The State, Respondent,

v.

Quasay Yusas Thomas, Appellant.


Appeal From Union County
 Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-300
Submitted February 20, 2004 – Filed May 5, 2004


AFFIRMED


Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Deputy Director for Legal Services Teresa A. Knox; Legal Counsel Tommy Evans, Jr.; and Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, S.C. Dept. of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Quasay Yusas Thomas appeals the revocation of his probation.  We affirm.

Thomas pled guilty on April 25, 2002 to contributing to the delinquency of a minor.  He had been indicted for criminal sexual conduct with a minor, second degree.  The plea court sentenced him to a three-year term of imprisonment, but suspended the sentence upon his service of six months imprisonment or the payment of a three-hundred-dollar fine and the service of two-years probation.

Twelve months later, following the issuance of a probation citation charging Thomas with violating the terms of his probation, the sentencing court conducted a hearing on May 15, 2003 and revoked his probation in full.  The probation citation cited Thomas, inter alia, with failing to report in December, January, and February to his probation officer as instructed, testing positive for marijuana on March 25, 2003 for the third time, and failing to pay a court-ordered fine and a supervision fee, all in violation of the conditions of his probation.  With particular reference to his using marijuana, Thomas stated in response to a question from the sentencing court as to whether he could pass a drug test, “Well, sir, I haven’t smoked any marijuana in a month.”  Among the standard conditions of Thomas’ probation, which the sentencing court found he violated, was the condition that requires a probationer to “refrain from the violations of any state or federal penal laws.” S.C. Code Ann. § 24-21-430(1) (Supp. 2003). 

We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR, and affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, because the challenge leveled by Thomas at the revocation of his probation is manifestly without merit. See State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 647, 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding the decision to revoke probation is committed to the discretion of the sentencing court and the review of the court of appeals is limited to correcting errors of law unless the lack of a legal or factual basis indicated the sentencing judge acted arbitrarily or capriciously); Barlet v. State, 288 S.C. 481, 483, 343 S.E.2d 620, 622 (1986) (“Probation may not be revoked solely on the ground the probationer failed to pay fines or to make restitution.”); 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law §1561, at 154 (1989) (“A violation of the terms, or even one of the terms, of probation is sufficient ground for revocation” and “[a] judge may revoke probation when reasonably satisfied that a state . . . law has been violated, and conviction is not essential”); S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-370(c) (2002) (making possession of marijuana a criminal offense in South Carolina). 

AFFIRMED.      

GOOLSBY,  HOWARD, AND KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.