State v. Bennett

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Bennett

DecidedMay 11, 2007

Docket2007-UP-217

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Bennett (State v. Bennett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Bennett, (S.C. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Wayne David Bennett, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-217
Submitted May 1, 2007 Filed May 11, 2007

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Office of the Attorney General, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Wayne David Bennett appeals his convictions for Criminal Sexual Conduct with a minor, Criminal Sexual Conduct Second Degree, and Incest. On appeal, Bennetts counsel argues the court erred in finding the State proved Bennetts stepdaughter was less than sixteen years old at the time of their relationship. Bennetts counsel also alleges the judge erred in finding the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Bennett used aggravated coercion during the sexual relationship with this stepdaughter. Bennett filed a pro se brief in which he avers the judge should have ordered the State to elect a charge since the two criminal sexual conduct charges stemmed from the same set of facts. In addition, Bennett argues there is no evidence of aggravated coercion and that the crime of incest was not proven. Finally, Bennett alleges ineffective assistance of counsel.

After a thorough review of the record and counsels 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 counsels motion to be relieved.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the circuit courts decision is

APPEAL DISMISSED. [1]

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

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Wayne David Bennett, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-217
Submitted May 1, 2007 Filed May 11, 2007

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Office of the Attorney General, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Wayne David Bennett appeals his convictions for Criminal Sexual Conduct with a minor, Criminal Sexual Conduct Second Degree, and Incest. On appeal, Bennetts counsel argues the court erred in finding the State proved Bennetts stepdaughter was less than sixteen years old at the time of their relationship. Bennetts counsel also alleges the judge erred in finding the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Bennett used aggravated coercion during the sexual relationship with this stepdaughter. Bennett filed a pro se brief in which he avers the judge should have ordered the State to elect a charge since the two criminal sexual conduct charges stemmed from the same set of facts. In addition, Bennett argues there is no evidence of aggravated coercion and that the crime of incest was not proven. Finally, Bennett alleges ineffective assistance of counsel.

After a thorough review of the record and counsels 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 counsels motion to be relieved.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the circuit courts decision is

APPEAL DISMISSED. [1]

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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Bennett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bennett-scctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack