State v. Haaker

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON
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.

John R. Haaker,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

C. Victor Pyle, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-152

Submitted January 28, 2004 – Filed March 2, 2004

APPEAL DISMISSED

Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda P. Hagler , Office
of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant,

Legal Counsel Tommy Evans, Jr., Legal Counsel J. Benjamin
Aplin, Deputy Director for Legal Services Teresa A. Knox, S.C. Dept. of Probation,
of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  John R. Haaker appeals the
circuit court’s revocation of his probation for malicious injury to property. 
He asserts the circuit court erred in revoking his probation in part because
there was no evidence indicating he willfully failed to pay the fees.   Haaker’s
appellate counsel has petitioned to be relieved as counsel, stating that she
has reviewed the record and has concluded Haaker’s appeal is without merit. 
Haaker has not filed a pro se brief. 

After a thorough review of the record 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 hold there are no directly appealable
issues that are arguable on their merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss Haaker’s
appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved. [1]    

APPEAL DISMISSED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur. 
 

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