State v. Cunningham

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.

Judy Cunningham,       
Appellant.

Appeal From York County

John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-195

Submitted January 29, 2004 – Filed March
24, 2004

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, Office of Appellate
Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM:  Judy Cunningham appeals the
revocation of her probation.  Cunningham’s appellate counsel has petitioned
to be relieved as counsel, stating he has reviewed the record and has concluded
Cunningham’s appeal is without merit.  The sole issue briefed by counsel concerns
whether the circuit court violated Cunningham’s Constitutional Due Process rights
by revoking her probation without first conducting a preliminary hearing.  Cunningham
filed a separate pro se reply brief.

After a review of the record as required by 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 Cunningham’s appeal
and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.1

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

         
1  Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving
the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rules 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.