State v. Michael Constance

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.

Michael Constance, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-511

Submitted October 1, 2009- Filed November
5, 2009   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, 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 Harold W. Gowdy, III,
of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Michael Constance appeals his guilty plea for shoplifting
as a third property offense.  Constance argues the plea court erred in not
considering information material to his punishment.  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., KONDUROS and
LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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