Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-127 - State v. Coker

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.

Joseph Coker, Appellant.


Appeal From Orangeburg County
Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-127 
Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed February 29, 2012


REVERSED AND REMANDED


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

J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Joseph Coker appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing the circuit court erred because he did not willfully violate the terms of his probation and the circuit court failed to make the necessary findings of fact as to whether the violation was willful.  Pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, we reverse[1] the revocation of Coker's probation and remand to the circuit court to conduct a revocation hearing in accordance with the following authorities:  State v. Spare, 374 S.C. 264, 268-70, 647 S.E.2d 706, 708-09 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding probation may not be revoked solely for failure to pay fines, fees, or restitution unless the circuit court makes a finding on the record that the probationer willfully refused to pay or failed to make a bona fide effort to pay); State v. Phillip Coker, Op. No. 4945 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Feb. 22, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 7 at 33) (holding the circuit court failed to make the requisite findings, and, accordingly, reversing and remanding to the circuit court with instructions to make the findings required by Spare, along with findings of fact to support each).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

FEW, C.J., HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.


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