State v. Rose

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.

James Leslie
Rose, Jr., Appellant.

Appeal From York County

 John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-390   

Submitted September 1, 2007 – Filed
September 24, 2007

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Teresa A. Knox, Tommy Evans Jr., and J. Benjamin Aplin, of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER
CURIAM:  James Leslie Rose, Jr.,
appeals the circuit court’s revocation of his probation from his conviction for
aggravated stalking.  Rose
argues the circuit court erred in revoking his probation.  We disagree.  “The determination of whether or not to revoke
probation is within the trial court’s discretion.”  State v. Pauling,
371 S.C. 435, 430, 639 S.E.2d 680, 681 (Ct. App. 2006).  Our authority to
review this determination is “confined to correcting errors of law unless the
lack of a legal or evidentiary basis indicates the circuit judge’s decision was
arbitrary and capricious.”  Id.  Here, Rose admitted he violated the
terms of his probation.  Further, the record demonstrates an evidentiary basis
for the circuit court’s decision.  Rose’s
counsel has petitioned to be relieved as counsel, stating that he has reviewed
the record and has concluded Rose’s appeal is without merit.  Rose 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.

HEARN, C.J.,
HUFF and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.

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