State v. Bennett

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.

Wayne David Bennett, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

 Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2007-UP-217

Submitted May 1, 2007 – Filed May 11, 2007

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Office of the Attorney General, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Wayne David Bennett appeals his convictions for Criminal Sexual Conduct with a minor, Criminal Sexual Conduct Second Degree, and Incest.  On appeal, Bennett’s counsel argues the court erred in finding the State proved Bennett’s stepdaughter was less than sixteen years old at the time of their relationship.  Bennett’s counsel also alleges the judge erred in finding the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Bennett used aggravated coercion during the sexual relationship with this stepdaughter.  Bennett filed a pro se brief in which he avers the judge should have ordered the State to elect a charge since the two criminal sexual conduct charges stemmed from the same set of facts.  In addition, Bennett argues there is no evidence of aggravated coercion and that the crime of incest was not proven.  Finally, Bennett alleges ineffective assistance of counsel.

After a thorough review of the record and counsel’s brief 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.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the circuit court’s decision is

APPEAL DISMISSED. [1] 

STILWELL, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral arguments pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.