State v. Davis

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.

Rodney Davis, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

Thomas L. Hughston, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-407

Submitted September 1, 2009 – Filed
September 2, 2009

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Rodney
Davis appeals his community supervision revocation.  Davis argues the trial
court erred in refusing to restructure its continuation order so that the
statutory life time electronic monitoring requirements would not apply.  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. 

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

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