State v. Shane Taylor ( 2009 )

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.

Shane Taylor, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Spartanburg County
J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-520
Submitted November 2, 2009 – Filed November 19, 2009

---

Affirmed

---

Senior Appellate Defender, Joseph Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Assistant Chief Legal Counsel, J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Shane Taylor appeals the revocation of his probation arguing the trial court "erred by revoking [his] probation simply because he was homeless, as the status of homelessness as a basis for incarceration violates the Fourteenth Amendment."  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Sweet, 374 S.C. 1, 5, 647 S.E.2d 202, 205 (2007) ("To properly preserve an issue for review there must be a contemporaneous objection that is ruled upon by the trial court."); State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 648-49, 511 S.E.2d 94, 97 (Ct. App. 1999) ("[B]efore revoking probation, the [trial court] must determine if there is sufficient evidence to establish that the probationer has violated his probation conditions.").

Affirmed.

Hearn, C.J., Huff, and Geathers, J.J., concur.

---

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