State v. Shatney

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.

Thorpe Shatney, Appellant.

Appeal From Sumter County

Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-289

Submitted April 4, 2005 – Filed April 21, 2005

APPEAL DISMISSED

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

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Cecil Kelly Jackson, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Thorpe Shatney appeals his convictions for first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor and committing or attempting to commit a lewd act upon a child.  Counsel for Shatney attached to the final brief a petition to be relieved as counsel.  Shatney did not file 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 Shatney’s appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and STILWELL, JJ., concur.