State v. Easterling

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.

Teddy Gerrod Easterling, Appellant.

Appeal From Darlington County

 Paul M. Burch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-181

Submitted April 1, 2006 – Filed April 6, 2006  

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, 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 Jay E. Hodge, Jr., of Cheraw, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Teddy Easterling appeals his guilty plea of burglary in the second degree.  Easterling argues the trial judge failed to comply with the mandates set forth in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), in accepting his plea.  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 Easterling’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.[1]

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and STILWELL, JJ., concur. 

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