DocketNumber： 2008-UP-113
Filed Date： 2/13/2008
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 10/22/2024
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.
Zora Stocker, Appellant.
Appeal From Richland County
James W. Johnson, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-113
Submitted February 1, 2008 Filed
February 13, 2008
AFFIRMED
Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.
John Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Zora Stocker appeals from the revocation of her probation, arguing the circuit court erred by allowing a non-lawyer to present the States case for revoking her probation. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Barlow, 372 S.C. 534, 539, 643 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2007) (holding that a probation agents presentation of the States case in a revocation proceeding does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law); State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 648, 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (explaining that an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the revocation judge to be preserved for appellate review).
AFFIRMED.[2]
HUFF, KITTREDGE, and WILLIAMS, concur.
[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
[2] After submitting his initial brief, defense counsel wrote a letter informing our court of the State v. Barlow decision. In light of the Barlow decision, counsel requested we review Stockers probation revocation pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). However, this request was not accompanied by a petition to be relieved as counsel. Accordingly, the appeal proceeded as a non-Anders case.