State v. Franklin

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 South Carolina Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Larry Wayne Franklin, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-140

Submitted March 1, 2006 – Filed March 9, 2006

APPEAL DISMISSED

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

Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole & Pardon Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Larry Wayne Franklin appeals his probation revocation of one year on a conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the second degree in which he received three years imprisonment and two years community supervision.  Franklin maintains the trial court erred because it revoked his probation solely for his inability to pay without determining on the record that he did not make a bona fide effort to pay, as required by Barlet v. State, 288 S.C. 481, 483, 343 S.E.2d 620, 622 (1986). On appeal, counsel for Franklin has filed a final brief along with a petition to be relieved as counsel.  Franklin filed a pro se response.  After a thorough review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Franklin’s pro se 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] Franklin’s appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.         

APPEAL DISMISSED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, JJ. AND CURETON, A.J., CONCUR.

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