State v. Hedgepath

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.

Robert Daniel
Hedgepath, Appellant.

Appeal From Chester County

Brooks P. Goldsmith, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-316

Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 21,
2011 

APPEAL DISMISSED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H.
Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Assistant Chief Legal Counsel J. Benjamin
Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Robert
Daniel Hedgepath appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing the trial
court erred in requiring electronic monitoring as a part of his sentence
because it violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual
punishment.  After a thorough
review of the record and all briefs, 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 the appeal and grant counsel's motion to be relieved.[1]

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and
THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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