State v. Wallen

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.

Bradley Ansel Wallen, Appellant.

Appeal From Union County
 John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-626   
Submitted December 1, 2004 Filed December 10, 2004

APPEAL DISMISSED

Acting Deputy Chief Attorney Wanda P. Hagler, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Bradley Ansel Wallen appeals the revocation of his probation for second degree burglary.  Wallen's appellate counsel has petitioned to be relieved as counsel, stating she has reviewed the record and has concluded Wallen's appeal is without merit.  The sole issue briefed by counsel concerns whether the circuit court erred in revoking Wallen's probation for failure to pay fines owed without making an explicit finding that Wallen did so willfully. Wallen did not file a separate pro se reply brief.

After a review of the record as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we hold there are no directly appealable issues that are arguable on their merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and grant counsel's petition to be relieved.1

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HUFF and KITTREDGE, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.   

1We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rules 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.