State v. Dowling

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.

Octavious M. Dowling, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

 Daniel F. Pieper, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-502

Submitted August 1, 2005 – Filed August 24, 2005   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia; and Solicitor Ralph E. Hoisington, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Octavious Dowling appeals his conviction of grand larceny for which he was sentenced to five years in prison, suspended upon service of two years and probation for three years.  Dowling’s counsel contends the trial court erred in failing to grant Dowling’s motion for directed verdict because there was insufficient evidence of guilt.  Dowling did not submit a pro se brief.  After a thorough review of the record and counsel’s brief and review 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 Dowling’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.[1]

GOOLSBY, BEATTY, and SHORT, JJ., concur.

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