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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Michael Rose, Appellant.

Appeal From Sumter County

George C. James, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-171

Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed March
7, 2012   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Michael Rose appeals the circuit court's revocation of
his community supervision, arguing the circuit court erred in not holding a
full evidentiary hearing.  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. 

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and
LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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