THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
Zora Stocker, Appellant.
Appeal From Richland County
James W. Johnson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-113
Submitted February 1, 2008 – Filed February 13, 2008
Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.
John Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Zora Stocker appeals from the revocation of her probation, arguing the circuit court erred by allowing a non-lawyer to present the State’s case for revoking her probation. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Barlow, 372 S.C. 534, 539, 643 S.E.2d 682, 685 (2007) (holding that a probation agent’s presentation of the State’s case in a revocation proceeding does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law); State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 648, 511 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct. App. 1999) (explaining that an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the revocation judge to be preserved for appellate review).
HUFF, KITTREDGE, and WILLIAMS, concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
 After submitting his initial brief, defense counsel wrote a letter informing our court of the State v. Barlow decision. In light of the Barlow decision, counsel requested we review Stocker’s probation revocation pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). However, this request was not accompanied by a petition to be relieved as counsel. Accordingly, the appeal proceeded as a non-Anders case.