State v. Kight

CourtListener 10137583ScctappApr 19, 2004

Full text

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.

Rhonda M. Kight,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County

John W. Kittredge, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-264

Submitted February 20, 2004 – Filed
April 19, 2004

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, 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 Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Rhonda M. Kight pled
guilty to one count of grand larceny, one count of third-degree burglary, two
counts of first-degree burglary, two counts of criminal conspiracy, and two
counts of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (“ABHAN”).  The
circuit court sentenced her to five years imprisonment for grand larceny, five
years imprisonment for third-degree burglary, fifteen years imprisonment for
each count of first-degree burglary, five years imprisonment for each count
of criminal conspiracy, and ten years imprisonment for each count of ABHAN. 
Additionally, the circuit court revoked her probation for unrelated charges,
the sentences to all run concurrently.  Pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Kight’s counsel attached a petition to be relieved.  Kight
did not file a pro se response.

After 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 Kight’s appeal and grant counsel’s petition
to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
[1]

HEARN, C.J., GOOLSBY, and HOWARD,
JJ., concurring.

[1] Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue
on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215
and 220(b)(2), SCACR.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.