Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2007-UP-349 - State v. Holland

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.

Jesse Holland, Appellant.


Appeal From Anderson County
 Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-349
Submitted June 1, 2007 – Filed July 6, 2007


APPEAL DISMISSED


Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, South Carolina Commission, of Columbia, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM:  Jesse Holland was convicted for resisting arrest, failure to stop for a police signal, and assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. Holland was sentenced to five years of confinement, suspended on serving 30 months confinement and two years probation.  On August 29, 2005, the State issued a citation alleging Holland had violated the terms of his probation.  Following a hearing on the alleged violation, the Honorable Clifton Newman revoked Holland’s probation in full and imposed his entire suspended sentence.  This appeal follows.  On appeal, Holland argues the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation because he could not report to his probation agent on July 26, 2005 due to being in jail and because the trial judge considered unrelated charges against him that had not yet been resolved.  Holland’s counsel attached a petition to be relieved, stating she reviewed the record and concluded this appeal lacks merit.  Holland has not filed a pro se response 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 dismiss the appeal and grant counsel's petition to be relieved.            

APPEAL DISMISSED. [1]

STILWELL, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.


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