State v. Hemphill ( 2011 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Richard Lee Hemphill, Appellant.

---

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

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-342
Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 29, 2011   

---

APPEAL DISMISSED

---

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

J. Benjamin Aplin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Richard Lee Hemphill appeals his probation revocation, arguing the trial court erred in revoking his probation because an insufficient factual basis existed for the alleged probation violations.  After a thorough review of the record and counsel's brief 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 motion to be relieved.[1]

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

SHORT, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

---

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