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.

William Neuhaus, Appellant.

Appeal From Aiken County
 Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2008-UP-527
Submitted September 2, 2008 – Filed September 11, 2008

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM: William Neuhaus appeals the revocation of his probation.  Neubaus argues the probation judge abused his discretion by revoking Neuhaus’s probation because the judge ignored Neuhaus’s justifiable explanations for his violations.  Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Neuhaus’s counsel attached a petition to be relieved, stating she reviewed the record and concluded this appeal lacks merit.  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[1] Neuhaus’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

ANDERSON, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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