State v. Haynes

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Haynes

DecidedOctober 13, 2008

Docket2008-UP-564

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Haynes (State v. Haynes) 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. Haynes, (S.C. Ct. App. 2008).

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.

Shawn L. Haynes a/k/a Vashaun L. Haynes, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County
Daniel F. Pieper, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-564
Submitted October 1, 2008 Filed October 13, 2008

APPEAL DISMISSED

Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Shawn Haynes appeals his convictions and sentences for carjacking, armed robbery, grand larceny, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. On appeal, Haynes argues the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce reply testimony to impeach his testimony on a collateral matter in violation of State v. Brock, 130 S.C. 252, 126 S.E.2d 28 (1925). 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[1] Haynes appeal and grant counsels 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.

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.

Shawn L. Haynes a/k/a Vashaun L. Haynes, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County
Daniel F. Pieper, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-564
Submitted October 1, 2008 Filed October 13, 2008

APPEAL DISMISSED

Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Shawn Haynes appeals his convictions and sentences for carjacking, armed robbery, grand larceny, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. On appeal, Haynes argues the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce reply testimony to impeach his testimony on a collateral matter in violation of State v. Brock, 130 S.C. 252, 126 S.E.2d 28 (1925). 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[1] Haynes appeal and grant counsels 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Haynes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-haynes-scctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack