State v. Neuhaus

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.

William
Neuhaus, Appellant.

Appeal From Aiken County

 Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2008-UP-527

Submitted September 2, 2008 – Filed
September 11, 2008

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, South Carolina Commission
on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

J. Benjamin Aplin, S.C. Dept. of Probation Parole & Pardon, of
Columbia, for Respondent.

 

PER CURIAM: William
Neuhaus appeals the revocation of his probation.  Neubaus argues the probation
judge abused his discretion by revoking Neuhaus’s probation because the judge
ignored Neuhaus’s justifiable explanations for his violations.  Pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Neuhaus’s counsel attached a petition
to be relieved, stating she 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] Neuhaus’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

ANDERSON, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ.,
concur.

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