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Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-112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.