Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-420 - State v. Aldridge

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.

Jerome Aldridge, Appellant.


Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-420
Submitted September 1, 2009 – Filed September 3, 2009   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

John Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jerome Aldridge appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing the probation court's decision to revoke his probation was without evidentiary support and constituted a denial of due process.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Crouch, 355 S.C. 355, 359, 585 S.E.2d 288, 291 (2003) (holding this court will only reverse the decision to revoke probation when the decision is based on an error of law or lacks supporting evidence); State v. Conyers, 326 S.C. 263, 266, 487 S.E.2d 181, 183 (1997) (stating an issue must be raised and ruled upon in the circuit court in order to be preserved for appellate review); State v. White, 218 S.C. 130, 135-36, 61 S.E.2d 754, 756 (1950) (explaining the decision to revoke probation is addressed to the discretion of the trial court); State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 648, 511 S.E.2d 94, 97 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Probation is a matter of grace; revocation is the means to enforce the conditions of probation."); Id. at 648, 511 S.E.2d at 97 ("[T]he authority of the revoking court should always be predicated upon an evidentiary showing of fact tending to establish a violation of the conditions.").

AFFIRMED.

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


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