Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-283 - State v. West

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.

Michael S. West, Appellant.


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


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-283
Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 20, 2010


AFFIRMED


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

J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Michael S. West appeals the revocation of his probation for third-degree burglary and grand larceny for which the probation court ordered West to complete his initial ten-year sentence by serving eight years' imprisonment.  West received thirty-three days of credit for time served.  On appeal, West argues the probation court violated his constitutional rights by failing to give him credit for time served in Florida.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1. As to whether the probation court violated West's constitutional right to a hearing:  State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal.").

2. As to whether the probation court violated West's constitutional right to counsel: State v. Turner, 384 S.C. 451, 454, 682 S.E.2d 792, 793 (2009) (finding "all persons charged with probation violations have a right to counsel and must be informed of this right pursuant to court rules and case law"); State v. Bryant, 383 S.C. 410, 414, 680 S.E.2d 11, 13 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The right to counsel attaches in probation revocation hearings.") (quotations and citation omitted). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.


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