State v. Littlejohn

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.

James Bernard
Littlejohn, Appellant.

Appeal From Cherokee County

J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-390

Submitted August 2, 2010 – Filed August
25, 2010

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, 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 Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:   James Bernard Littlejohn appeals his
common law robbery conviction, arguing the trial court erred by giving a
confusing reasonable doubt charge.  Littlejohn filed a pro se brief, arguing
the trial court erred by giving confusing jury instructions on reasonable
doubt, identification, and substantial evidence.  After a thorough review of the record, counsel's brief,
and Littlejohn's pro se 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.

FEW, C.J.,
KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 

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