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,
Norwood Lee Jordan, Appellant.
Appeal From Richland County
William H. Seals, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-486
Submitted October 1, 2011 – Filed October 31, 2011
Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.
J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Norwood Lee Jordan appeals the circuit court's order revoking his probation, arguing the circuit court erred (1) in revoking twenty years of his sentence; (2) in finding Jordan was barred from raising the issue of whether he remained on probation; and (3) in finding Jordan remained on probation. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the circuit court erred in revoking twenty years of Jordan's sentence: In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 92, 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) ("A bald assertion, without supporting argument, does not preserve an issue for appeal."); Hunt v. S.C. Forestry Comm'n, 358 S.C. 564, 573, 595 S.E.2d 846, 851 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Issues raised in a brief but not supported by authority are deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal.").
2. As to whether the circuit court erred in finding Jordan was barred from raising the issue of whether he remained on probation: Carolina Renewal, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 385 S.C. 550, 554, 684 S.E.2d 779, 782 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, prevents a party from relitigating an issue that was decided in a previous action, regardless of whether the claims in the first and subsequent lawsuits are the same.").
3. As to whether the circuit court erred in finding Jordan remained on probation: State v. Bryant, 383 S.C. 410, 418, 680 S.E.2d 11, 15 (Ct. App. 2009) (holding an issue not raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court revoking probation was not preserved for review).
FEW, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
 Prior to our receipt of the final brief in this case, the South Carolina Supreme Court published a case with nearly identical facts and issues. SeeState v. Picklesimer, 388 S.C. 264, 695 S.E.2d 845 (2010). On appeal, Jordan does not brief Picklesimer; therefore, these issues may be appropriate for a post-conviction relief proceeding.