State v. Eastwood

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.

Jonathan Luke
Eastwood, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

 G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-229

Submitted April 1, 2008 – Filed April 14,
2008   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Deputy Chief Attorney for Capital Appeals Robert M. Dudek, 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 Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jonathan Luke Eastwood appeals his guilty plea to assault and battery of a
high and aggravated nature.  On appeal, Eastwood maintains his guilty plea
failed to conform to the mandates set forth in Boykin v. Alabama, 395
U.S. 238 (1969).  Specifically, Eastwood maintains the trial court abused its
discretion by failing to adequately advise him of his constitutional rights.  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] Eastwood’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL
DISMISSED.

ANDERSON, SHORT, and THOMAS JJ., concur.

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