State v. Glanville

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.

David Jerome
Glanville,        Appellant.

Appeal From Dorchester County

Thomas L. Hughston, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.
2005-UP-524

Submitted August 1, 2005 – Filed September 15, 2005

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender
Eleanor Duffy Cleary, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia,
 for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry
Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh,
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Office of the
Attorney General, all of Columbia, and Robert Douglas Robbins, of
Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  David
Jerome Glanville appeals his convictions for assault with intent to commit
criminal sexual conduct with a minor, first degree and criminal sexual conduct
with a minor, second degree.  He maintains the trial court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction because his indictment for criminal sexual conduct with a
minor was insufficient.  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] Glanville’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion
to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J. and STILWELL and
KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.

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