State v. Murray

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.

Geoffrey
Murray, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

 Thomas L. Hughston, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-128

Submitted February 1, 2008 – Filed
February 20, 2008   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Chief Attorney for Capital Appeals 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, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor Ralph E. Hoisington, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Geoffrey Murray was convicted for armed
robbery and assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature.  On appeal, Murray alleges the trial court erred by admitting the victim’s identification of Murray because it was the product of an unduly suggestive show-up procedure.  After a thorough review of the record,
Murray’s pro se brief, 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.

ANDERSON, SHORT and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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