State v. Barton

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.

Charles Barton,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Aiken County

J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-386

Submitted April 21, 2004 – Filed June 18, 2004

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, Office
of Appellate Defense, 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 Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Charles Barton appeals his
conviction on charges of assault and battery with intent to kill, of possession
of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, and of voluntary manslaughter.
Counsel for Barton attached to the final brief a petition to be relieved as
counsel. Barton filed a separate pro se response. 

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 that are arguable on their merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss Barton’s
appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.