State v. Medlock

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.

Malcolm Medlock, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

 J. Michelle Childs, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-314

Submitted May 1, 2009 – Filed June 11,
2009   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
of Columbia; and Solicitor Warren B. Giese, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Malcolm
Medlock appeals from his guilty plea to reckless
driving, possession of a stolen pistol, possession with intent to distribute
marijuana, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and two counts of kidnapping. 
On appeal, Medlock argues his plea did not comply with the mandates of Boykin
v. Alabama, 395 U.S 238 (1969).  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.

HEARN, C.J., THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ.,
concur.

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