State v. Rhineharg

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.

James Robert Rhinehart, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

 John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-204

Submitted April 1, 2006 – Filed April 14, 2006   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, 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, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: James Robert Rhinehart appeals from his guilty plea to possession of marijuana, third offense. He contends the circuit court erred by accepting his plea without advising him of his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, his right to trial by jury, and his right to confront his accusers. Rhinehart’s counsel attached to the brief a petition to be relieved as counsel, stating he had reviewed the record and concluded Rhinehart’s appeal lacks merit.  Rhinehart filed a separate pro se brief, in which he argues the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea.  After a thorough review of the record, Rhinehart’s brief, 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] Rhinehart’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

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