Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2005-UP-032 - State v. Williams
Michael J

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.

Kenneth Ray Williams, Appellant.


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


Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-032   
Submitted January 1, 2005 – Filed January 13, 2005


APPEAL DISMISSED


Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Deputy Director for Legal Services Teresa A. Knox, Legal Counsel Tommy Evans, Jr., Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Kenneth Ray Williams pled guilty to grand larceny (greater than $1,000), second-degree burglary, and criminal conspiracy.  The circuit court judge sentenced Williams to three years imprisonment for grand larceny, ten years imprisonment suspended upon the service of four years and five years probation for second-degree burglary, and three years imprisonment for criminal conspiracy.  After Williams violated several conditions of his probation, the judge revoked six years of Williams’s sentence and reduced the balance of his restitution payments to a civil judgment in the amount of $138.  Williams appeals the revocation of his probation.         

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Williams attached to the final brief a petition to be relieved as counsel, stating she had reviewed the record and concluded Williams’s appeal is without legal merit sufficient to warrant a new trial.  Williams did not file a separate pro se response.

After a thorough review of the record pursuant to Anders and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED. [1]

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and BEATTY, 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 Rule 215, SCACR.