THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

Michael Granstrom        Appellant.

Appeal From Aiken County
James R. Barber, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-512 
Submitted July 1, 2003 – Filed August 27, 2003

AFFIRMED

Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia; for Appellant.

Deputy Director for Legal Services Theresa A. Knox, Legal Counsel Tommy Evans, Jr. and Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Michael Granstrom was charged with larceny in Aiken County in 1987.  He subsequently pled guilty to this charge and received a ten-year sentence that was suspended to five years probation.  The probation matter was supposedly transferred to Georgia; however, when Granstrom reported to Georgia, they had not yet received his paperwork.  Subsequently, Granstrom was brought before the court for a probation violation hearing.  The court found that Granstrom had willfully violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The court revoked six years of Granstrom’s suspended sentence and terminated his probation.  This appeal follows. 

We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 648, 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (challenge to the validity of probation revocation must be raised to and ruled upon by the revocation judge to be preserved for appellate review); State v. Archie, 322 S.C. 135, 137, 470 S.E.2d 380, 381 (Ct. App. 1996) (the appellate court “will not disturb the circuit court's decision to revoke probation unless the decision was influenced by an error of law, was without evidentiary support, or constituted an abuse of discretion.”).

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ, concur.