Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-147 - State v. Reid

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.

Keymont Reid, AKA Marica Kemont Reid, Appellant.


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


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-147  
Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed March 7, 2012


AFFIRMED


Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Keymont Reid, AKA Marica Kemont Reid, appeals the circuit court's order revoking his probation and reinstating the original suspended sentences, arguing the circuit court erred by impermissibly revoking his probation for a non-willful violation.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 24-21-460 (2007) (prescribing the circuit court's authority to "revoke the probation or suspension of sentence" and "the right, in [its] discretion, to require the defendant to serve all or a portion only of the sentence [originally] imposed"); State v. Allen, 370 S.C. 88, 94, 634 S.E.2d 653, 655 (2006) ("The determination of whether to revoke probation in whole or part rests within the sound discretion of the [circuit] court."); State v. Lee, 350 S.C. 125, 129, 564 S.E.2d 372, 374 (Ct. App. 2002) ("A reviewing court will only reverse this determination when it is based on an error of law or a lack of supporting evidence renders it arbitrary or capricious."); State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 648, 511 S.E.2d 94, 97 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Probation is a matter of grace; revocation is the means to enforce the conditions of probation.");id. at 649, 511 S.E.2d at 97 ("It is only when probation is revoked solely for failure to pay fines or restitution that a finding of willfulness is mandatory."). 

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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