State v. MacFarland

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Michael MacFarland,       
Appellant,

Appeal From Charleston County

Deadra L. Jefferson, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-554

Submitted July 15, 2003 – Filed September
25, 2003 

APPEAL DISMISSED

Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda H. Haile,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Charles M. Condon,
Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Charles H. Richardson, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Ralph E. Hoisington, of
Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Michael MacFarland appeals
his conviction for possession of heroin, arguing the lower court erred in allowing
the State to exercise three peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner. 
MacFarland’s counsel attached to the brief a petition to be relieved as counsel,
stating that she had reviewed the record and concluded this appeal lacks merit. 
MacFarland filed a separate pro se brief arguing his rights have
been denied based on certain technicalities.  After a thorough review of the
record, MacFarland’s pro se brief, 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
[1] MacFarland’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., CONNOR and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.

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