State v. Scott

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.

Gary S. Scott,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Dillon County

James E. Lockemy, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-229

Submitted January 29, 2004 – Filed March 31, 2004

APPEAL DISMISSED

Deputy Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, Office of Appellate
Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka,
all of Columbia; and Solicitor Jay E. Hodge, Jr., of Cheraw, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Gary S. Scott appeals his convictions
for armed robbery, grand larceny, and murder.  Scott’s appellate counsel has
petitioned to be relieved as counsel, stating he has reviewed the record and
has concluded Scott’s appeal is without merit.  The issue briefed by counsel
concerns whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence an incriminating
statement the police obtained from Scott allegedly in violation of Miranda
v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).  Scott has filed a brief with this court
on his own behalf with ten arguments.

After a review of the record as required
by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Williams,
305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we hold there are no directly appealable
issues in this case that are arguable on their merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss
Scott’s appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.1

APPEAL DISMISSED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, 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 Rules 215
and 220(b)(2), SCACR.