State v. Rose

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.

Michael Rose, Appellant.

Appeal From Sumter County
George C. James, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-171
Submitted February 1, 2012 Filed March 7, 2012   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Michael Rose appeals the circuit court's revocation of his community supervision, arguing the circuit court erred in not holding a full evidentiary hearing.  After a thorough review of the record and counsel's brief 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. 

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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