State v. Williams

Michael J

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.

Kenneth Ray Williams, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

 John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-032   

Submitted January 1, 2005 – Filed January
13, 2005

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Deputy Director for Legal Services Teresa A. Knox, Legal Counsel Tommy Evans,
Jr., Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, South Carolina Department of Probation,
Parole and Pardon Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Kenneth Ray Williams pled guilty
to grand larceny (greater than $1,000), second-degree burglary, and criminal
conspiracy.  The circuit court judge sentenced Williams to three years imprisonment
for grand larceny, ten years imprisonment suspended upon the service of four
years and five years probation for second-degree burglary, and three years imprisonment
for criminal conspiracy.  After Williams violated several conditions of his
probation, the judge revoked six years of Williams’s sentence and reduced the
balance of his restitution payments to a civil judgment in the amount of $138. 
Williams appeals the revocation of his probation.         

Pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Williams attached to the final brief a petition
to be relieved as counsel, stating she had reviewed the record and concluded
Williams’s appeal is without legal merit sufficient to warrant a new trial. 
Williams did not file a separate pro se response.

After a thorough review of the record pursuant
to Anders and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357
(1991), we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
[1]

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

[1] Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues
on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215,
SCACR.