State v. Young

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Willie Young, III,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Orangeburg County

James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-564

Submitted July 15, 2003 – Filed September 29, 2003

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson,
Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, Walter M. Bailey, Jr., First Circuit
Solicitor's Office, of Summerville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: On August 23, 2002, an Orangeburg
County jury found Willie Young guilty of armed robbery but not guilty for possession
of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime.  Young appeals his conviction,
arguing the trial court should have set aside his conviction because the guilty
verdict for armed robbery was inconsistent with the not guilty verdict for possession
of a weapon.    Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
Young’s counsel attached a petition to be relieved, stating he reviewed the
record and concluded this appeal lacks merit.  Young filed a separate pro
se brief, arguing the following four issues: (1) the trial court erred in
refusing to direct a verdict “where a material variance existed between the
evidence offered at the trial and the allegations presented in the indictment”;
(2) the trial judge lacked subject matter jurisdiction; (3) the evidence was
insufficient to sustain the conviction for armed robbery; and (4) the trial
court was prejudicial to him by refusing to set aside the armed robbery conviction
when a material variance existed. Young’s counsel attached to the brief a petition
to be relieved as counsel, stating he had reviewed the record and concluded
Young’s appeal lacks merit.  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 [1] Young’s appeal and grant counsel’s
motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., CONNOR and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.

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