State v. Kirk ( 2008 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

---

The State, Respondent,

v.

Maurice Kirk, Appellant.

---

Appeal From York County
Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2008-UP-419
Submitted June 1, 2008 – Filed July 21, 2008

---

AFFIRMED

---

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Assistant Chief Legal Counsel John Benjamin Aplin, South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Maurice Kirk appeals the revocation of his probation.  Specifically, Kirk claims the court erred in revoking his probation because the terms of probation were imposed by the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, not by the sentencing judge.  Kirk did not object to the allegations he violated the conditions of his probation, told the court “he just wants to serve his time,” and did not object to court’s decision to revoke his probation.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Lee, 350 S.C. 125, 129-30, 564 S.E.2d 372, 374-75 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review).[1]

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and SHORT and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

---

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