State v. Smith

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.

Antoine
Christopher Smith, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

 Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-435

Submitted October 1, 2007 – Filed October
9, 2007   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Chief Attorney for Capital Appeals Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Antoine Christopher Smith appeals his conviction for assault and battery of a
high and aggravated nature.  Smith argues the trial court erred by refusing to
suppress victim’s identification of Smith because the identification was
irreparably tainted by an unduly suggestive identification procedure by the
police several days after the incident.  Smith did not file a pro se response brief.  After a
thorough review of the record and counsel’s brief, 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 Smith’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.[1]

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., HUFF and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.

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