State v. Newell

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.

Christopher
Patton Newell, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-431

Submitted September 1, 2009 – Filed
September 9, 2009  

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender LaNelle C. DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM:  Christopher Patton Newell appeals his probation
revocation, arguing the trial court erred by revoking his probation without
first holding a full evidentiary hearing.  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 Newell's
appeal and grant counsel's motion to be relieved. [1]

APPEAL
DISMISSED. 

HUFF,
THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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