State v. Wright

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.

Albert Nathaniel Wright, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

 Daniel  F.  Pieper, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-185

Submitted April 1, 2006 – Filed April 6, 2006   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Acting Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz III, of Columbia, and Albert Nathaniel Wright, of Ridgeville, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,  of Columbia, Ralph E. Hoisington, Ninth Circuit Solicitor's Office, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Albert Nathaniel Wright appeals his convictions for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and failure to stop for a blue light.  The case originally resulted in a mistrial on both drug charges and resulted in a guilty verdict on the failure to stop charge.  Upon retrial, Wright was convicted by a jury of his peers and sentenced to concurrent terms of 15 years, 12 years, and eight months respectively.  Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Wright’s counsel attached a petition to be relieved, stating he reviewed the record and concluded this appeal lacks merit.  

After a thorough review of the record pursuant to Anders and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.[1]

BEATTY, SHORT AND WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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