State v. Murray
This text of State v. Murray (State v. Murray) 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.
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 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
v.
Raymond Murray, Appellant.
Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-232
Submitted April 2, 2012 Filed April 18,
2012
APPEAL DISMISSED
Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, and Raymond Murray, pro se, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin S. Brackett, of York, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Raymond Murray appeals the denial of his motion to reopen his 1987 criminal sexual conduct case because his plea was involuntary, arguing the trial court erred in denying the motion based on lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, Murray filed a pro se brief. After a thorough review of the record and briefs 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 counsel's motion to be relieved.[1]
APPEAL DISMISSED.
PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Murray, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-murray-scctapp-2012.