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Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-626   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.