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,
Eldon D. Butterfield, Appellant.
Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-319
Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 22, 2011
Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Assistant Chief Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Eldon D. Butterfield appeals the order of the circuit court revoking his probation and reinstating his three-year sentence. He argues the circuit court erred because the order was in violation of due process and fundamental fairness. Moreover, he contends the circuit court's finding of a willful violation was not supported by the evidence. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the circuit court's revocation of Butterfield's probation violated due process and fundamental fairness: State v. Lee, 350 S.C. 125, 130, 564 S.E.2d 372, 375 (Ct. App. 2002) ("An issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the [circuit court] to be preserved for appellate review.").
2. As to whether the circuit court erred in finding Butterfield willfully violated his parole: S.C. Code Ann. § 24-21-460 (2007) ("[T]he circuit [court] before wh[ich] such defendant may be so brought shall have the right, in [its] discretion, to require the defendant to serve all or a portion only of the [original] sentence imposed."); State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 647, 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) ("This court's authority to review such a decision is confined to correcting errors of law unless the lack of a legal or evidentiary basis indicates the circuit [court]'s decision was arbitrary and capricious." (citations omitted)); Lee, 350 S.C. at 131-32, 564 S.E.2d at 376 (holding that there was a "sufficient factual basis to support the revocation" when appellant admitted to violating the conditions of his probation).
FEW, C.J., PIEPER and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.