State v. Siriwat

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.

Chairut Siriwat, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

 Reginald I. Lloyd, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-188   

Submitted April 1, 2006 – Filed April 10, 2006

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, 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, of Columbia, Warren Blair Giese, Fifth Circuit Solicitor’s Office, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Chairut Siriwat appeals his conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the third degree, arguing his motion for directed verdict should have been granted because the State’s evidence failed to provide sufficient evidence aliunde his confession of the corpus delicti of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree. Siriwat filed a separate pro se brief.  After a thorough review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Siriwat’s pro se 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 Siriwat’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED. [1]

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

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