State v. Seitz

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN
ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Mark Eric
Seitz, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

 Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-245

Submitted April 1, 2010 – Filed April 21,
2010

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin S. Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Mark Eric
Seitz appeals his conviction for grand larceny.  On appeal, Seitz argues the
trial court erred in admitting an unduly suggestive identification of Seitz
involving a single photograph and in failing to grant a directed verdict
motion.  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 the appeal and grant counsel's motion to be relieved.[1]

APPEAL DISMISSED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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