State v. Hamilton

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.

Thomas Curtis Hamilton, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

Honorable R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-448

Submitted September 1, 2009 – Filed
October 7, 2009   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Chief Appellate Defender 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 Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Thomas Hamilton
appeals his first-degree burglary conviction, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to
suppress the victim's identification of him because the identification was the
product of an unduly suggestive show-up.  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 GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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