State v. Klein

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.

William Charles
Klein, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

 John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-369

Submitted July 1, 2008 – Filed July 11,
2008     

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM:  William
Charles Klein appeals the revocation of his probation.  He argues the trial
court erred in allowing his ex-wife to testify regarding matters unrelated to
his probation revocation.  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] Klein’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.   

APPEAL
DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J.,
CURETON and GOOLSBY, A.J.J, concur.

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