State v. Mintz

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.

Rhonda Michelle
Mintz, Appellant.

Appeal From Chesterfield County

 Kenneth G. Goode, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-517

Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed December
1, 2010     

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER
CURIAM:  Rhonda Michelle Mintz
appeals her probation revocation, arguing the probation revocation hearing was
too summary in nature.  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[1] the appeal and grant counsel's petition to
be relieved. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

SHORT,
THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 

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