State v. Abney

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.

Rodriquez Abney, Appellant.

Appeal From Aiken County

 Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2007-UP-159

Submitted April 2, 2007 – Filed April 5, 2007

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, South Carolina Commission, of Columbia, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM: Rodriquez Abney appeals the revocation of his probation.  Abney argues the court should have considered Abney’s failure to report to his probation agent was due to circumstances beyond his control.  Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Abney’s counsel attached a petition to be relieved, stating he reviewed the record and concluded this appeal lacks merit.  Abney did not file a pro se brief.  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] Abney’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

ANDERSON, KITTREDGE, and SHORT JJ., concur

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