State v. Jeffrey Bailey

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. Jeffrey Bailey, Appellant. Appeal From Spartanburg County Gordon G. Cooper, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-092 Submitted February 1, 2010 – Filed February 3, 2010 AFFIRMED Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant. John Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Bailey appeals his probation revocation, arguing the trial court erred in revoking his probation without a sufficient evidentiary basis and a finding of willfulness. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. White, 218 S.C. 130, 134-35, 61 S.E.2d 754, 756 (1950) (stating the decision to revoke probation is addressed to the discretion of the trial court); State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 647, 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding an appellate court's authority to review a probation revocation is confined to correcting errors of law unless the lack of legal or evidentiary basis indicates the circuit judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious); Id. at 649, 511 S.E.2d at 97 ("[I]n those cases involving the failure to pay fines or restitution, the circuit judge must, in addition to finding sufficient factual evidence of the violation, make an additional finding of willfulness."). AFFIRMED. HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.