State v. Haynesworth

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,

v.

Alphonso Haynesworth, Appellant.

Appeal From Sumter County
 Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion number 2008-UP-474
Submitted August 1, 2008 Filed August 11, 2008

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia, for Appellant. 

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

PER CURIAM: Alphonso Haynesworth appeals the revocation of his probation.  Haynesworth argues the circuit court's decision to revoke his probation was arbitrary and capricious because Haynesworth offered valid explanations for failing to meet the conditions of probation.  Haynesworth also submitted a pro se brief.  Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Haynesworth's counsel attached a petition to be relieved, stating she reviewed the record and concluded this appeal lacks merit.  After a thorough review of the record and both briefs pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we dismiss[1] Haynesworth's appeal and grant counsel's motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

KONDUROS, J., CURETON, A.J., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.

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