State v. Tinsley

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.

Genience
Tinsley, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

 Kenneth G. Goode, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-210

Submitted April 1, 2009 – Filed May 18,
2009   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Genience
Tinsley appeals her guilty plea to eight counts of forgery, and sentence of
eight concurrent five year terms, suspended upon the service of three years’
imprisonment and five years probation with the special condition of
restitution.  Tinsley argues her guilty plea did not comply with the mandates
set forth in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969).  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.[1]

APPEAL
DISMISSED.

Hearn,
C.J., Pieper and
Lockemy, JJ., concur.

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