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
In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of James Carl Miller, Appellant.
Appeal From Lexington County
R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-457
Submitted October 1, 2011 – Filed October 13, 2011
David B. Betts, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: James C. Miller appeals the circuit court's finding that no probable cause existed to believe that Miller's mental abnormality or personality disorder had so changed that he was safe to be at large and, if released, was not likely to commit acts of sexual violence. Miller argues he was entitled to a trial because he met his burden at the probable cause hearing through his expert's testimony. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-110 (Supp. 2010) (allowing a person committed under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (the Act) to petition the court for release at the annual hearing to review the committed person's status and "[i]f the court determines that probable cause exists to believe that the person's mental abnormality or personality disorder has so changed that the person is safe to be at large and, if released, is not likely to commit acts of sexual violence, the court must schedule a trial on the issue"); In re Care and Treatment of Tucker, 353 S.C. 466, 470, 578 S.E.2d 719, 721 (2003) ("On review, the appellate court will not disturb the [circuit] court's finding on probable cause unless found to be without evidence that reasonably supports the [circuit] court's finding."); id. at 470, 578 S.E.2d at 722 ("[T]he committed person has the burden of showing the [circuit] court that probable cause exists to believe that his mental condition has so changed that he is safe to be released."); In re Care and Treatment of Corley, 365 S.C. 252, 258, 616 S.E. 2d 441, 444 (Ct. App. 2005) ("[T]he Act contains no provision for court-ordered outpatient treatment.").
HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.