State v. Murray

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.

Tavia Chamar
Murray, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

 Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-303

Submitted June 2, 2008 – Filed June 11,
2008   

DISMISSED

Chief Attorney 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: Tavia
Murray appeals her guilty plea to possession
with intent to distribute crack, distribution of crack, possession with intent
to distribute crack within proximity of a park, and distribution of crack
within proximity of a park.  Murray contends the circuit court committed reversible
error in accepting her guilty plea without obtaining a waiver of her right to
confrontation, thereby failing to comply with the mandates of Boykin v.
Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969).  In a separate pro se argument,
Murray argues her counsel was ineffective, her guilty plea was obtained
through threats, officers violated her privacy, and officers dismissed charges
on an informant in a conspiracy to place charges on her.  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 Murray’s
appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.[1]

DISMISSED.

HEARN,
C.J., CURETON, A.J., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.

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