Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-255 - State v. McDaniel

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.

Robby McDaniel, Appellant.


Appeal From Dorchester County
 James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-255
Submitted April 1, 2010 – Filed April 26, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Robby McDaniel appeals the revocation of his probation.  He contends the circuit court erred in revoking his probation based solely on the fact that he was terminated from sex offender counseling because he was in denial.  He asserts this was error because the initial order did not require a successful completion of counseling and did not require an admission of guilt as a condition of the successful completion of counseling.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Bryant, 372 S.C. 305, 315-16, 642 S.E.2d 582, 588 (2007) (holding if an appellant conceded the trial court's ruling was not prejudicial, he could not assert on appeal the ruling denied him a fair trial); State v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 195, 498 S.E.2d 642, 645 (1998) (finding when an appellant acquiesces in the trial court's ruling, the issue is procedurally barred); Ex parte McMillan, 319 S.C. 331, 335, 461 S.E.2d 43, 45 (1995) (providing a party cannot concede an issue at trial and then complain on appeal). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


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