State v. Hemphill

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.

Richard Lee
Hemphill, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-342

Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 29,
2011   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Richard
Lee Hemphill appeals his probation revocation, arguing the trial court erred in
revoking his probation because an insufficient factual basis existed for the
alleged probation violations.  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 the appeal and grant counsel's motion to be relieved.[1]

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

SHORT, KONDUROS, and
GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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