State v. Rose

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Rose

DecidedSeptember 24, 2007

Docket2007-UP-390

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Rose (State v. Rose) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Rose, (S.C. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

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.

James Leslie Rose, Jr., Appellant.

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-390
Submitted September 1, 2007 Filed September 24, 2007

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM: James Leslie Rose, Jr., appeals the circuit courts revocation of his probation from his conviction for aggravated stalking. Rose argues the circuit court erred in revoking his probation. We disagree. The determination of whether or not to revoke probation is within the trial courts discretion. State v. Pauling, 371 S.C. 435, 430, 639 S.E.2d 680, 681 (Ct. App. 2006). Our authority to review this determination is confined to correcting errors of law unless the lack of a legal or evidentiary basis indicates the circuit judges decision was arbitrary and capricious. Id. Here, Rose admitted he violated the terms of his probation. Further, the record demonstrates an evidentiary basis for the circuit courts decision. Roses counsel has petitioned to be relieved as counsel, stating that he has reviewed the record and has concluded Roses appeal is without merit. Rose has not filed a pro se brief.

After a thorough review of the record 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 hold there are no directly appealable issues that are arguable on their merits. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and grant counsels petition to be relieved.[1]

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., HUFF and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

James Leslie Rose, Jr., Appellant.

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-390
Submitted September 1, 2007 Filed September 24, 2007

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM: James Leslie Rose, Jr., appeals the circuit courts revocation of his probation from his conviction for aggravated stalking. Rose argues the circuit court erred in revoking his probation. We disagree. The determination of whether or not to revoke probation is within the trial courts discretion. State v. Pauling, 371 S.C. 435, 430, 639 S.E.2d 680, 681 (Ct. App. 2006). Our authority to review this determination is confined to correcting errors of law unless the lack of a legal or evidentiary basis indicates the circuit judges decision was arbitrary and capricious. Id. Here, Rose admitted he violated the terms of his probation. Further, the record demonstrates an evidentiary basis for the circuit courts decision. Roses counsel has petitioned to be relieved as counsel, stating that he has reviewed the record and has concluded Roses appeal is without merit. Rose has not filed a pro se brief.

After a thorough review of the record 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 hold there are no directly appealable issues that are arguable on their merits. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and grant counsels petition to be relieved.[1]

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., HUFF and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Rose, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rose-scctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack