Williams v. State

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

Heyward Williams,       
Appellant,

v.

State of South Carolina,       
Respondent.

Appeal From Richland County

Henry F. Floyd, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-093

Submitted February 1, 2005 – Filed February
8, 2005

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Assistant Attorney General David E. Spencer, of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In this case involving a petition for
writ of habeas corpus, Heyward Williams appeals the circuit court’s order finding
the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to convict him of first-degree
burglary. He contends there is insufficient evidence to support the finding
that the indictment for first-degree burglary was “true billed” by the grand
jury.

Pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Williams attached to the final brief a petition
to be relieved as counsel, stating she had reviewed the record and concluded
Williams’ appeal is without legal merit sufficient to warrant a new trial. 
Williams did not file a separate pro se response.

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]

ANDERSON and BEATTY, JJ., and CURETON, A.J.,
concur.

[1] Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues
on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215,
SCACR.