State v. Moore

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.

Clarence Moore, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

 Daniel F. Pieper, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2005-UP-056

Submitted January 1, 2005 – Filed January
24, 2005

APPEAL DISMISSED

Acting Deputy Chief Attorney
Wanda P. Hagler, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh,
and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Ralph E. Hoisington, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Clarence Moore appeals his conviction of attempted second-degree
burglary.  He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. 

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel
for Moore attached to the final brief a petition to be relieved as counsel,
stating she had reviewed the record and concluded that Moore’s appeal is without
legal merit sufficient to warrant a new trial.  Moore filed a separate pro
se response. 

After thorough
review of the record pursuant to Anders and State v. Williams,
305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s
petition to be relieved. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
[1]

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

[1] Because oral argument would not aid the court
in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument
pursuant to rule 215, SCACR.