State v. Culbertson

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.

Clarence Culbertson, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County
Charles B. Simmons, Jr., Special Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-505
Submitted October 1, 2011 Filed November 15, 2011

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Clarence Culbertson appeals the circuit court's order revoking his probation, arguing the circuit court erred by relying, in part, on irrelevant and unsubstantiated sex offender information.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority:  State v. Hicks, 387 S.C. 378, 379, 692 S.E.2d 919, 920 (2010) ("Where the ruling of the trial judge is based on more than one ground, an appellate court must affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds upon which the ruling was based.").   

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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