State v. Middleton

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.

Taroyja Cortez Middleton, Appellant.

Appeal From McCormick County

James E. Lockemy, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-169

Submitted April 2, 2007 – Filed April 13, 2007

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, of Columbia, for Appellant. 

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all of Columbia; Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Taroyja Cortez Middleton appeals his conviction and sentence for distribution of crack cocaine and distribution of crack cocaine within proximity of a school.  Counsel for Middleton attached to the final brief a petition to be relieved as counsel.  Middleton filed a separate pro se response.

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 Middleton’s appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.[1]

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., GOOLSBY, and STILWELL, JJ., concur. 

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