State v. Pruitt

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.

Wanda Kay Pruitt, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

 G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2004-UP-585

Submitted November 1, 2004 – Filed November
17, 2004

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia, for Appellant

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh,
and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Wanda Kay Pruitt was convicted of armed robbery and conspiracy
and sentenced to imprisonment for ten years on each charge, with the terms to
run concurrently.  The issue briefed by appellate counsel concerns whether the
circuit court improperly denied her motion for a directed verdict on the basis
of a material variance between the facts alleged in her indictment for armed
robbery and the evidence presented at trial.  Pruitt’s counsel has petitioned
to be relieved as counsel, stating that she has reviewed the record and has
concluded the appeal is without merit.  Pruitt has not filed a pro se
brief.     

After a review of the record as required by 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 this appeal and grant counsel’s petition
to be relieved. [1]    

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.   

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