Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-252 - State v. Butler

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.

Shakeia Butler, Appellant.


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


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-252
Submitted April 2, 2012 – Filed April 25, 2012   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General David Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor David M. Pascoe, Jr., of Summerville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Shakeia Butler appeals the circuit court's denial of her motion for early parole eligibility under section 16-25-90 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2011).  Butler argues she submitted credible evidence of a history of criminal domestic violence suffered at the hands of a household member, as required by section 16-25-90.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Blackwell-Selim, 392 S.C. 1, 3, 707 S.E.2d 426, 427-28 (2011) (stating the appellate court does not reevaluate the facts based on its own view of the evidence but rather determines whether any evidence supports the circuit court's ruling); id. at 3-4, 707 S.E.2d at 428 (stating a history of criminal domestic violence under section 16-25-90 must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence); id. at 4, 707 S.E.2d at 428 ("[M]ere production of evidence does not automatically result in earlier parole eligibility; instead, the defendant must persuade the [circuit court] by presenting proof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.").

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


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