State v. Williams

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.

Vaughn Williams, Appellant.

Appeal From Beaufort County

 Jackson V. Gregory, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-646  

Submitted December 1, 2005 – Filed December 21, 2005

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, 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 Randolph Murdaugh, III, of Hampton, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Vaughn Williams appeals his conviction and sentence of nineteen years for attempted burglary in the first degree.  Williams argues the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the indictment did not allege the essential elements of the offense.  Also, Williams has filed a pro se brief in which he raises issues regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel, insufficient chain of custody, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on an incomplete indictment.  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] Williams’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J. and HUFF and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

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