Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-109 - State v. Sutton

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

Rita Nicole Sutton,        Appellant.


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


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-109
Submitted December 23, 2003 – Filed February 18, 2004


APPEAL DISMISSED


Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, of Columbia; for Appellant.

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


PER CURIAM:  Rita Nicole Sutton pled guilty to driving under the influence, second offense, failure to stop for a blue light, possession of crack cocaine, and resisting arrest. The circuit court sentenced her to: one-year imprisonment and payment of a $5,000 fine for driving under the influence, suspended on service of ninety-days imprisonment, probation of five years, and payment of a $1,000 fine; one-year imprisonment for failure to stop for a blue light, suspended on service of ninety-days imprisonment and probation of five years; five-years imprisonment and payment of a $5,000 fine for possession of crack cocaine, suspended on service of five-years probation, and one-year imprisonment and payment of a $1,000 fine for resisting arrest, suspended on service of five-years probation.  The sentences were to run concurrently.  Subsequently, Sutton was arrested for noncompliance with the terms of her probation, and the circuit court revoked her probation, imposing the remainder of her suspended sentence.  Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Sutton’s counsel attached a petition to be relieved.  Sutton did not file a pro se response.

After 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 dismiss Sutton’s appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED. [1]

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concurring.


[1] Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.