State v. Rhinehart

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.

Jimmy Arthur Rhinehart,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Union County

Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-257

Submitted February 23, 2004 – Filed April 15, 2004

APPEAL DISMISSED

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

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

PER CURIAM:  Appellant appeals the circuit
court’s revocation of his probation from his convictions for possession of a
pistol by a person convicted of a violent crime, forgery, second-degree burglary,
and petit larceny.  Appellant’s counsel has petitioned to be relieved as counsel,
stating that she has reviewed the record and has concluded Appellant’s appeal
is without merit.  Appellant has not filed a pro se  brief. 

After a thorough review of the record
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 hold there are no directly
appealable issues that are arguable on their merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss
this appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.
[1]

APPEAL DISMISSED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.

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