probation revocation hearing in South Carolina

2021See State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 648 , 511 S.E.2d 94, 96-97 (Ct. App. 1999) (stating that to be preserved for review, an issue must be raised during the probation revocation hearing and may not be raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration).

2021See State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 648 , 511 S.E.2d 94, 96-97 (Ct. App. 1999) (stating that to be preserved for review, an issue must be raised during the probation revocation hearing and may not be raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration).

2021Because the trial court denied Petitioner the right to counsel despite his repeated requests for counsel at the hearing, we reverse the trial court's revocation of Petitioner's probation and remand for a new probation revocation hearing pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Salley v. State, 306 S.C. 213, 215 , 410 S.E.2d 921, 922 (1991) ("The right to counsel attaches in probation revocation hearings."); Turner v. State, 384 S.C. 451, 454 , 682 S.E.2d 792, 793 (2009) ("However, a probationer does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel."); id. ("Rather, the right t

2021Because the trial court denied Petitioner the right to counsel despite his repeated requests for counsel at the hearing, we reverse the trial court's revocation of Petitioner's probation and remand for a new probation revocation hearing pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Salley v. State, 306 S.C. 213, 215 , 410 S.E.2d 921, 922 (1991) ("The right to counsel attaches in probation revocation hearings."); Turner v. State, 384 S.C. 451, 454 , 682 S.E.2d 792, 793 (2009) ("However, a probationer does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel."); id. ("Rather, the right t

2016We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Byrd v. Irmo High Sch., 321 S.C. 426, 431 , 468 S.E.2d 861, 864 (1996) (allowing courts to examine moot issues that are capable of repetition, yet evading review); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972) (holding that while due process rights require a hearing when a probation violation is alleged, that hearing does not rise to the level of a trial); id. (concluding the probation process "should be flexible enough to consider evidence including letters [and] affidavits that would not be admissible in an adversary cr

2016We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Byrd v. Irmo High Sch., 321 S.C. 426, 431 , 468 S.E.2d 861, 864 (1996) (allowing courts to examine moot issues that are capable of repetition, yet evading review); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972) (holding that while due process rights require a hearing when a probation violation is alleged, that hearing does not rise to the level of a trial); id. (concluding the probation process "should be flexible enough to consider evidence including letters [and] affidavits that would not be admissible in an adversary cr

2010We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Bryant , 383 S.C. 410, 418 , 680 S.E.2d 11, 15 (Ct. App. 2009) (holding the failure to raise the issue of willfulness at a probation revocation hearing renders the issue not preserved for appellate review); State v. Hamilton , 333 S.C. 642, 649 , 511 S.E.2d 94, 97 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding no finding of willfulness is necessary where conditions of probation other than failure to pay were violated); State v. Allen , 370 S.C. 88, 102 , 634 S.E.2d 653, 660 (2006) (when the trial court's revocation decision is u

2010We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Bryant , 383 S.C. 410, 418 , 680 S.E.2d 11, 15 (Ct. App. 2009) (holding the failure to raise the issue of willfulness at a probation revocation hearing renders the issue not preserved for appellate review); State v. Hamilton , 333 S.C. 642, 649 , 511 S.E.2d 94, 97 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding no finding of willfulness is necessary where conditions of probation other than failure to pay were violated); State v. Allen , 370 S.C. 88, 102 , 634 S.E.2d 653, 660 (2006) (when the trial court's revocation decision is u

2021Because the trial court denied Petitioner the right to counsel despite his repeated requests for counsel at the hearing, we reverse the trial court's revocation of Petitioner's probation and remand for a new probation revocation hearing pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Salley v. State, 306 S.C. 213, 215 , 410 S.E.2d 921, 922 (1991) ("The right to counsel attaches in probation revocation hearings."); Turner v. State, 384 S.C. 451, 454 , 682 S.E.2d 792, 793 (2009) ("However, a probationer does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel."); id. ("Rather, the right t

2021Because the trial court denied Petitioner the right to counsel despite his repeated requests for counsel at the hearing, we reverse the trial court's revocation of Petitioner's probation and remand for a new probation revocation hearing pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Salley v. State, 306 S.C. 213, 215 , 410 S.E.2d 921, 922 (1991) ("The right to counsel attaches in probation revocation hearings."); Turner v. State, 384 S.C. 451, 454 , 682 S.E.2d 792, 793 (2009) ("However, a probationer does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel."); id. ("Rather, the right t

2008We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Lee , 350 S.C. 125, 129-30 , 564 S.E.2d 372, 374-75 (Ct. App. 2002) (noting in probation revocation appeal that an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review); State v. Shumate , 276 S.C. 46, 47 , 275 S.E.2d 288, 288 (1981) (holding where appellant’s contention was not advanced at the probation revocation hearing, failure to object or seek modification of the revocation sentence in the trial court foreclosed consideration of issue on appeal).

2008We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Lee , 350 S.C. 125, 129-30 , 564 S.E.2d 372, 374-75 (Ct. App. 2002) (noting in probation revocation appeal that an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review); State v. Shumate , 276 S.C. 46, 47 , 275 S.E.2d 288, 288 (1981) (holding where appellant’s contention was not advanced at the probation revocation hearing, failure to object or seek modification of the revocation sentence in the trial court foreclosed consideration of issue on appeal).

2008See Huckaby v. State , 305 S.C. 331, 335 , 408 S.E.2d 242, 244 (1991) (stating a defendant in a probation revocation hearing must be advised of his right to counsel, the hearing court must determine if a defendant’s request to proceed pro se constituted a knowing and intelligent waiver, and the hearing court must make defendant aware of the dangers of self-representation).

2008See Huckaby v. State , 305 S.C. 331, 335 , 408 S.E.2d 242, 244 (1991) (stating a defendant in a probation revocation hearing must be advised of his right to counsel, the hearing court must determine if a defendant’s request to proceed pro se constituted a knowing and intelligent waiver, and the hearing court must make defendant aware of the dangers of self-representation).

2023See State v. Spare, 374 S.C. 264, 268 , 647 S.E.2d 706, 708 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The decision to revoke probation is addressed to the sound discretion of the [family] court."); State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 647 , 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (stating an appellate "court's authority to review such a decision is confined to correcting errors of law unless the lack of a legal or evidentiary basis indicates the [family court's] decision was arbitrary and capricious"); Spare, 374 S.C. at 268 , 647 S.E.2d at 708 ("In deciding whether to revoke probation, '[t]he [family] court must determine whe

2007See Eggers, 742 A.2d at 176 (vacating revocation of probation based on probationer’s failure to pay and remanding for a new hearing where trial court “made no judicial inquiry into the [probationer’s] ability to pay and reasons for [probationer’s] failure to make payment” and disregarded “an inquiry into whether the failure to pay was *271 willful, and if willful, whether alternatives to incarceration were proper”); Davis, 159 Ill.Dec. 841 , 576 N.E.2d at 513-14 (reversing revocation of probation for probationer’s failure to pay and remanding for trial court to determine whether an additional

2023See State v. Spare, 374 S.C. 264, 268 , 647 S.E.2d 706, 708 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The decision to revoke probation is addressed to the sound discretion of the [family] court."); State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 647 , 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (stating an appellate "court's authority to review such a decision is confined to correcting errors of law unless the lack of a legal or evidentiary basis indicates the [family court's] decision was arbitrary and capricious"); Spare, 374 S.C. at 268 , 647 S.E.2d at 708 ("In deciding whether to revoke probation, '[t]he [family] court must determine whe

2007See Eggers, 742 A.2d at 176 (vacating revocation of probation based on probationer’s failure to pay and remanding for a new hearing where trial court “made no judicial inquiry into the [probationer’s] ability to pay and reasons for [probationer’s] failure to make payment” and disregarded “an inquiry into whether the failure to pay was *271 willful, and if willful, whether alternatives to incarceration were proper”); Davis, 159 Ill.Dec. 841 , 576 N.E.2d at 513-14 (reversing revocation of probation for probationer’s failure to pay and remanding for trial court to determine whether an additional

2008We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Lee , 350 S.C. 125, 129-30 , 564 S.E.2d 372, 374-75 (Ct. App. 2002) (noting in probation revocation appeal that an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review); State v. Shumate , 276 S.C. 46, 47 , 275 S.E.2d 288, 288 (1981) (holding where appellant’s contention was not advanced at the probation revocation hearing, failure to object or seek modification of the revocation sentence in the trial court foreclosed consideration of issue on appeal).

2008We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Lee , 350 S.C. 125, 129-30 , 564 S.E.2d 372, 374-75 (Ct. App. 2002) (noting in probation revocation appeal that an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review); State v. Shumate , 276 S.C. 46, 47 , 275 S.E.2d 288, 288 (1981) (holding where appellant’s contention was not advanced at the probation revocation hearing, failure to object or seek modification of the revocation sentence in the trial court foreclosed consideration of issue on appeal).

2015PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 807 (1975) ("The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of our Constitution guarantee that a person brought to trial in any state or federal court must be afforded the right to the assistance of counsel before he can be validly convicted and punished by imprisonment."); State v. Bryant, 383 S.C. 410, 414 , 680 S.E.2d 11, 13 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The erroneous deprivation of [the right to counsel] constitutes per se reversible error."); Salley v. State, 306 S.C. 213, 215 , 410 S.E.2d 92

2006Salley v. State , 306 S.C. 213, 215 , 410 S.E.2d 921, 922 (1991). “ Faretta requires that a defendant ‘be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation so that the record will establish he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.’” Wroten v. State , 301 S.C. 293, 294 , 391 S.E.2d 575, 576 (1990) (quoting Faretta , 422 U.S. at 835 ).

2023See State v. Spare, 374 S.C. 264, 268 , 647 S.E.2d 706, 708 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The decision to revoke probation is addressed to the sound discretion of the [family] court."); State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 647 , 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (stating an appellate "court's authority to review such a decision is confined to correcting errors of law unless the lack of a legal or evidentiary basis indicates the [family court's] decision was arbitrary and capricious"); Spare, 374 S.C. at 268 , 647 S.E.2d at 708 ("In deciding whether to revoke probation, '[t]he [family] court must determine whe

2023See State v. Spare, 374 S.C. 264, 268 , 647 S.E.2d 706, 708 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The decision to revoke probation is addressed to the sound discretion of the [family] court."); State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 647 , 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (stating an appellate "court's authority to review such a decision is confined to correcting errors of law unless the lack of a legal or evidentiary basis indicates the [family court's] decision was arbitrary and capricious"); Spare, 374 S.C. at 268 , 647 S.E.2d at 708 ("In deciding whether to revoke probation, '[t]he [family] court must determine whe

2021Because the trial court denied Petitioner the right to counsel despite his repeated requests for counsel at the hearing, we reverse the trial court's revocation of Petitioner's probation and remand for a new probation revocation hearing pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Salley v. State, 306 S.C. 213, 215 , 410 S.E.2d 921, 922 (1991) ("The right to counsel attaches in probation revocation hearings."); Turner v. State, 384 S.C. 451, 454 , 682 S.E.2d 792, 793 (2009) ("However, a probationer does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel."); id. ("Rather, the right t

2021Because the trial court denied Petitioner the right to counsel despite his repeated requests for counsel at the hearing, we reverse the trial court's revocation of Petitioner's probation and remand for a new probation revocation hearing pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Salley v. State, 306 S.C. 213, 215 , 410 S.E.2d 921, 922 (1991) ("The right to counsel attaches in probation revocation hearings."); Turner v. State, 384 S.C. 451, 454 , 682 S.E.2d 792, 793 (2009) ("However, a probationer does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel."); id. ("Rather, the right t

2019Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301 , 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007))); State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 411-12 , 401 S.E.2d 168, 169 (1991) (finding an issue unpreserved because the appellant failed to object at a sentencing hearing); Fleming v. State, 399 S.C. 380, 381 , 731 S.E.2d 889 , 889 (2012) (per curiam) (finding no issues were preserved for appellate review because the appellant made no objections during a probation revocation hearing); State v. Head, 330 S.C. 79, 87 , 498 S.E.2d 389, 393 (Ct. App. 1997) ("This court cannot address unpreserved errors.").

2019Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301 , 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007))); State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 411-12 , 401 S.E.2d 168, 169 (1991) (finding an issue unpreserved because the appellant failed to object at a sentencing hearing); Fleming v. State, 399 S.C. 380, 381 , 731 S.E.2d 889 , 889 (2012) (per curiam) (finding no issues were preserved for appellate review because the appellant made no objections during a probation revocation hearing); State v. Head, 330 S.C. 79, 87 , 498 S.E.2d 389, 393 (Ct. App. 1997) ("This court cannot address unpreserved errors.").

2019Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301 , 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007))); State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 411-12 , 401 S.E.2d 168, 169 (1991) (finding an issue unpreserved because the appellant failed to object at a sentencing hearing); Fleming v. State, 399 S.C. 380, 381 , 731 S.E.2d 889 , 889 (2012) (per curiam) (finding no issues were preserved for appellate review because the appellant made no objections during a probation revocation hearing); State v. Head, 330 S.C. 79, 87 , 498 S.E.2d 389, 393 (Ct. App. 1997) ("This court cannot address unpreserved errors.").

2019Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301 , 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007))); State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 411-12 , 401 S.E.2d 168, 169 (1991) (finding an issue unpreserved because the appellant failed to object at a sentencing hearing); Fleming v. State, 399 S.C. 380, 381 , 731 S.E.2d 889 , 889 (2012) (per curiam) (finding no issues were preserved for appellate review because the appellant made no objections during a probation revocation hearing); State v. Head, 330 S.C. 79, 87 , 498 S.E.2d 389, 393 (Ct. App. 1997) ("This court cannot address unpreserved errors.").

2019Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301 , 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007))); State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 411-12 , 401 S.E.2d 168, 169 (1991) (finding an issue unpreserved because the appellant failed to object at a sentencing hearing); Fleming v. State, 399 S.C. 380, 381 , 731 S.E.2d 889 , 889 (2012) (per curiam) (finding no issues were preserved for appellate review because the appellant made no objections during a probation revocation hearing); State v. Head, 330 S.C. 79, 87 , 498 S.E.2d 389, 393 (Ct. App. 1997) ("This court cannot address unpreserved errors.").

2019Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301 , 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007))); State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 411-12 , 401 S.E.2d 168, 169 (1991) (finding an issue unpreserved because the appellant failed to object at a sentencing hearing); Fleming v. State, 399 S.C. 380, 381 , 731 S.E.2d 889 , 889 (2012) (per curiam) (finding no issues were preserved for appellate review because the appellant made no objections during a probation revocation hearing); State v. Head, 330 S.C. 79, 87 , 498 S.E.2d 389, 393 (Ct. App. 1997) ("This court cannot address unpreserved errors.").

2019Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301 , 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007))); State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 411-12 , 401 S.E.2d 168, 169 (1991) (finding an issue unpreserved because the appellant failed to object at a sentencing hearing); Fleming v. State, 399 S.C. 380, 381 , 731 S.E.2d 889 , 889 (2012) (per curiam) (finding no issues were preserved for appellate review because the appellant made no objections during a probation revocation hearing); State v. Head, 330 S.C. 79, 87 , 498 S.E.2d 389, 393 (Ct. App. 1997) ("This court cannot address unpreserved errors.").

2019Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301 , 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007))); State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 411-12 , 401 S.E.2d 168, 169 (1991) (finding an issue unpreserved because the appellant failed to object at a sentencing hearing); Fleming v. State, 399 S.C. 380, 381 , 731 S.E.2d 889 , 889 (2012) (per curiam) (finding no issues were preserved for appellate review because the appellant made no objections during a probation revocation hearing); State v. Head, 330 S.C. 79, 87 , 498 S.E.2d 389, 393 (Ct. App. 1997) ("This court cannot address unpreserved errors.").

2016We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Byrd v. Irmo High Sch., 321 S.C. 426, 431 , 468 S.E.2d 861, 864 (1996) (allowing courts to examine moot issues that are capable of repetition, yet evading review); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972) (holding that while due process rights require a hearing when a probation violation is alleged, that hearing does not rise to the level of a trial); id. (concluding the probation process "should be flexible enough to consider evidence including letters [and] affidavits that would not be admissible in an adversary cr

2016We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Byrd v. Irmo High Sch., 321 S.C. 426, 431 , 468 S.E.2d 861, 864 (1996) (allowing courts to examine moot issues that are capable of repetition, yet evading review); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972) (holding that while due process rights require a hearing when a probation violation is alleged, that hearing does not rise to the level of a trial); id. (concluding the probation process "should be flexible enough to consider evidence including letters [and] affidavits that would not be admissible in an adversary cr

2016We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Byrd v. Irmo High Sch., 321 S.C. 426, 431 , 468 S.E.2d 861, 864 (1996) (allowing courts to examine moot issues that are capable of repetition, yet evading review); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972) (holding that while due process rights require a hearing when a probation violation is alleged, that hearing does not rise to the level of a trial); id. (concluding the probation process "should be flexible enough to consider evidence including letters [and] affidavits that would not be admissible in an adversary cr

2016We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Byrd v. Irmo High Sch., 321 S.C. 426, 431 , 468 S.E.2d 861, 864 (1996) (allowing courts to examine moot issues that are capable of repetition, yet evading review); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972) (holding that while due process rights require a hearing when a probation violation is alleged, that hearing does not rise to the level of a trial); id. (concluding the probation process "should be flexible enough to consider evidence including letters [and] affidavits that would not be admissible in an adversary cr

2009State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 912 (1996) (stating an issue must be raised and ruled upon in the trial court in order to be preserved for appellate review); State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 648 , 511 S.E.2d 94, 96-97 (Ct.App.1999) (stating the failure to raise the issue of willfulness at a probation revocation hearing can waive the right to appeal).

2009State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 912 (1996) (stating an issue must be raised and ruled upon in the trial court in order to be preserved for appellate review); State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 648 , 511 S.E.2d 94, 96-97 (Ct.App.1999) (stating the failure to raise the issue of willfulness at a probation revocation hearing can waive the right to appeal).

2007Although the underlying probation violations “may themselves be criminal offenses, the probation revocation proceeding is not a criminal trial of those charges ..., but a more informal proceeding with respect to notice and proof of the alleged violations.” Id. (citations omitted); see also U.S. v. Davis, 151 F.3d 1304, 1307 (10th Cir.1998) (“Probation revocation proceedings are not criminal proceedings”).

2007See Eggers, 742 A.2d at 176 (vacating revocation of probation based on probationer’s failure to pay and remanding for a new hearing where trial court “made no judicial inquiry into the [probationer’s] ability to pay and reasons for [probationer’s] failure to make payment” and disregarded “an inquiry into whether the failure to pay was *271 willful, and if willful, whether alternatives to incarceration were proper”); Davis, 159 Ill.Dec. 841 , 576 N.E.2d at 513-14 (reversing revocation of probation for probationer’s failure to pay and remanding for trial court to determine whether an additional

2007See Eggers, 742 A.2d at 176 (vacating revocation of probation based on probationer’s failure to pay and remanding for a new hearing where trial court “made no judicial inquiry into the [probationer’s] ability to pay and reasons for [probationer’s] failure to make payment” and disregarded “an inquiry into whether the failure to pay was *271 willful, and if willful, whether alternatives to incarceration were proper”); Davis, 159 Ill.Dec. 841 , 576 N.E.2d at 513-14 (reversing revocation of probation for probationer’s failure to pay and remanding for trial court to determine whether an additional

2006Salley v. State , 306 S.C. 213, 215 , 410 S.E.2d 921, 922 (1991). “ Faretta requires that a defendant ‘be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation so that the record will establish he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.’” Wroten v. State , 301 S.C. 293, 294 , 391 S.E.2d 575, 576 (1990) (quoting Faretta , 422 U.S. at 835 ).

2006Salley v. State , 306 S.C. 213, 215 , 410 S.E.2d 921, 922 (1991). “ Faretta requires that a defendant ‘be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation so that the record will establish he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.’” Wroten v. State , 301 S.C. 293, 294 , 391 S.E.2d 575, 576 (1990) (quoting Faretta , 422 U.S. at 835 ).

2006Thus, our Court has recognized "that the rights of an offender in a probation revocation hearing are not the same as those extended him ... upon the trial of the original offense." Id. at 639 , 281 S.E.2d at 228 ; see also Duckson v. State, 355 S.C. 596 , 586 S.E.2d 576 (2003) (recognizing the differences between parole and probation revocation proceedings and criminal trials).

2006Thus, our Court has recognized "that the rights of an offender in a probation revocation hearing are not the same as those extended him ... upon the trial of the original offense." Id. at 639 , 281 S.E.2d at 228 ; see also Duckson v. State, 355 S.C. 596 , 586 S.E.2d 576 (2003) (recognizing the differences between parole and probation revocation proceedings and criminal trials).