State v. Hedgepath

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Robert Daniel Hedgepath, Appellant.

Appeal From Chester County
Brooks P. Goldsmith, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-316
Submitted June 1, 2011 Filed June 21, 2011 

APPEAL DISMISSED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Assistant Chief Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Robert Daniel Hedgepath appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing the trial court erred in requiring electronic monitoring as a part of his sentence because it violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.  After a thorough review of the record and all 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 the appeal and grant counsel's motion to be relieved.[1]

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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