THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

Kenneth Boynton,        Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County
Henry F. Floyd, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-604
Submitted August 20, 2003 – Filed October 20, 2003

AFFIRMED

Robert W. Mills, of Columbia, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM:  Kenneth Boynton was charged with violating the terms of his probation in that he willfully failed to follow the advice of his supervising agent, he was in possession of a pistol, he associated with persons having criminal records, and he has failed to pay both the required supervision fees and court ordered fees.  The trial judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that Boynton was in possession of the pistol and in violation of his probation.  Boynton appealed, and we affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 24-21-460 (Supp. 1997) (“[T]he court within the venue of which the violation occurs…may revoke the probation or suspension of sentence”); State v. Shumate, 276 S.C. 46, 47, 275, S.E.2d 288, 288 (1981) (“A defendant’s failure to timely object to or seek modification of his sentence in the trial court precludes him from presenting his objection for the first time on appeal.”); State v. White, 218 S.C. 130, 135-36, 61 S.E.2d 754, 756 (1950) (stating that review must be determined in accordance with principles governing exercise of judicial discretion); State v. Lee, 350 S.C. 125, 129, 564 S.E.2d 372, 374 (Ct. App. 2002) (stating, in the context of a probation revocation hearing, “[a]n issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review.”); State v. Proctor, 345 S.C. 299, 301, 546 S.E.2d 673, 674 (Ct. App. 2001) (“The determination to revoke probation is within the discretion of the circuit judge.”); Wilson v. Walker, 340 S.C. 531, 540, 532 S.E.2d. 19, 23 (Ct. App. 2000) (“Deciding whether to grant or deny a motion for continuance rests within the sound discretion of the trial court,” and a appellate court will not reverse the trial court absent a showing of abuse of discretion); State v. Archie, 322 S.C. 135, 136, 470 S.E.2d 380, 381 (Ct. App. 1996) (finding that an appellate court will not disturb a 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.

HEARN, C.J., ANDERSON and CURETON, JJ., concur.