State v. Satterfield

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.

Ronald David
Satterfield, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-036

Submitted December 1, 2008 – Filed January
15, 2009

APPEAL DISMISSED

Chief Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM: 
Ronald Satterfield appeals his guilty plea to trafficking methamphetamine in
excess of ten grams.  On
appeal, Satterfield argues that his guilty plea failed to comply with Boykin
v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), because the judge did not adequately
inform Satterfield of his right to confront the State’s witnesses against him. 
After a thorough review of the record 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 Satterfield’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be
relieved.[1]

APPEAL DISMISSED.

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 

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