State v. Hurt

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.

William Hurt, Jr.,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Aiken County

 William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-128

Submitted December 23, 2003 – Filed
February 26, 2004

APPEAL DISMISSED

Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda P. Hagler, Office
of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh,  Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson,
all of Columbia;  and Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Hurt was convicted of five
counts of burglary, and he was sentenced.  The issues briefed by appellate counsel
concerns whether the trial court erred by: 1) allowing the State to introduce
Hurt’s two prior burglary convictions as an aggravating circumstance when the
facts suggested that the “nighttime” element would have sufficed; and 2) allowing
the two prior burglary convictions to establish the aggravating circumstance
element when the prior convictions arose out of a single incident and would
constitute one offense under S.C. Code § 17-25-50.  Hurt’s counsel attached
a petition to be relieved as counsel, stating that she had reviewed the record
and concluded Hurt’s appeal is without legal merit.  In a response brief, Hurt
raises three issues pertaining to subject matter jurisdiction. 

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 hold there are no directly appealable
issues that are arguable on their merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss Hurt’s appeal
and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved. [1]    

APPEAL DISMISSED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur. 
 

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