Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2006-UP-213 - State v. Dubose

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.

Brandon Dubose, Appellant.


Appeal From Lexington County
 William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-213
Submitted April 1, 2006 – Filed April 18, 2006


APPEAL DISMISSED


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

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

PER CURIAM:  Brandon Dubose pleaded guilty to temporary use of a vehicle without permission, failure to stop for a blue light, and criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature (CDVHAN).  The circuit court judge sentenced Dubose to one year imprisonment for temporary use of a vehicle without permission, three years imprisonment for failure to stop for a blue light, and ten years imprisonment for CDVHAN.  Each of the concurrent sentences was suspended upon the service of two years probation.  After violating several conditions of his probation, the circuit court judge revoked Dubose’s probation in full.  Dubose appeals the revocation of his probation.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Dubose attached to the final brief a petition to be relieved as counsel, stating he had reviewed the record and concluded Dubose’s appeal is without legal merit sufficient to warrant a new trial.  Dubose 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]

BEATTY, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, 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.