State v. Bailey

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

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)(1), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Alonzo Bailey, Appellant.

Appeal From Aiken County

James R. Barber, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-265

Submitted March 1, 2005 – Filed April 8, 2005

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, of Columbia for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM:  Alonzo Bailey appeals arguing the trial judge abused his discretion in revoking his probation.  Bailey’s counsel attached to the final brief a petition to be relieved as counsel, stating she had reviewed the record and concluded this appeal lacks merit.  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[1] the appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

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