State v. Hall

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.

McKinnley David
Hall, Appellant.

Appeal From Florence County

 Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-114

Submitted March 2, 2009 – Filed March 4,
2009 

APPEAL DISMISSED

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

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

PER CURIAM: McKinnley
David Hall appeals his probation revocation, arguing the trial court erred by
adding conditions to his incarceration not originally ordered by the sentencing
court.  After a thorough
review of the record and both briefs 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,
WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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