State v. Johnson

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedJanuary 13, 2005
Docket2005-UP-031
StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Johnson (State v. Johnson) 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. Johnson, (S.C. Ct. App. 2005).

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.

Damien Johnson, Appellant.


Appeal From Georgetown County
 Paula H. Thomas, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2005-UP-031
Submitted January 1, 2005 – Filed January 13, 2005


APPEAL DISMISSED


Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all of Columbia; and Solicitor John Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Damien Johnson appeals his convictions for first-degree burglary, kidnapping, and armed robbery.  The trial judge sentenced Johnson to twenty years imprisonment for first-degree burglary, twenty years imprisonment for kidnapping, and thirteen years imprisonment for armed robbery. 

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Johnson attached to the final brief a petition to be relieved as counsel, stating she had reviewed the record and concluded Johnson’s appeal is without legal merit sufficient to warrant a new trial.  Johnson did not file a separate pro se response.

After a thorough review of the record pursuant to Anders 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]

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.


[1]   Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues on appeal, 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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
State v. Williams
406 S.E.2d 357 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Johnson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-johnson-scctapp-2005.