State v. Haynesworth

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.

Alphonso Haynesworth, Appellant.

Appeal From Sumter County

 Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion number 2008-UP-474

Submitted August 1, 2008 – Filed August
11, 2008

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia, for Appellant. 

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

PER CURIAM: Alphonso
Haynesworth appeals the revocation of his
probation.  Haynesworth argues the circuit court’s decision to revoke his
probation was arbitrary and capricious because Haynesworth offered valid
explanations for failing to meet the conditions of probation.  Haynesworth also
submitted a pro se brief.  Pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Haynesworth’s counsel attached a petition to be relieved,
stating she reviewed the record and concluded this appeal lacks merit.  After a thorough review of the record and both
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[1] Haynesworth’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL
DISMISSED.

KONDUROS, J., CURETON, A.J., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.

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