State v. Frye

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)(1), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Danielle Frye, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-357

Submitted May 1, 2005 – Filed May 23, 2005 

APPEAL DISMISSED

Acting 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, and Solicitor Warren B. Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Danielle Frye appeals from her guilty pleas to car-jacking, kidnapping, and criminal conspiracy, arguing the trial judge erred in accepting her plea where the evidence shows she was under the influence of the codefendant.  Frye’s counsel attached to the final brief a petition to be relieved as counsel, stating he had reviewed the record and concluded this 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] the appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., and BEATTY and SHORT, JJ., concur.

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