State v. Cunningham

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: March 24, 2004
• Docket: 2004-UP-195
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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.

Judy Cunningham,        Appellant.

---

Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-195
Submitted January 29, 2004 – Filed March 24, 2004

---

APPEAL DISMISSED

---

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

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

---

PER CURIAM:  Judy Cunningham appeals the revocation of her probation.  Cunningham’s appellate counsel has petitioned to be relieved as counsel, stating he has reviewed the record and has concluded Cunningham’s appeal is without merit.  The sole issue briefed by counsel concerns whether the circuit court violated Cunningham’s Constitutional Due Process rights by revoking her probation without first conducting a preliminary hearing.  Cunningham filed a separate pro se reply brief.

After a review of the record as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we hold there are no directly appealable issues that are arguable on their merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss Cunningham’s appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.¹

APPEAL DISMISSED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.

---

          ¹  Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rules 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.