State v. Moore

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.

Clarence Moore, Appellant.

---

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

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2005-UP-056
Submitted January 1, 2005 – Filed January 24, 2005

---

APPEAL DISMISSED

---

Acting Deputy Chief Attorney Wanda P. Hagler, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Ralph E. Hoisington, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Clarence Moore appeals his conviction of attempted second-degree burglary.  He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. 

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Moore attached to the final brief a petition to be relieved as counsel, stating she had reviewed the record and concluded that Moore’s appeal is without legal merit sufficient to warrant a new trial.  Moore filed a separate pro se response. 

After 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.