State v. Huffstetler

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 J. Huffstetler,       
Appellant.

Appeal From York County

John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-247

Submitted April 1, 2005 – Filed April 7, 2005

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, of Columbia, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM:  Kenneth J. Huffstetler appeals the revocation of his probation.  Huffstetler’s appellate counsel has petitioned to be relieved as counsel, stating she has reviewed the record and concluded Gaynor’s appeal is without merit.  The sole issue briefed by counsel concerns whether the circuit court erred in failing to consider mitigating factors before finding he wilfully violated the terms of his parol argeement.  Huffstetler 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.   

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., KITTREDGE and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.