State v. Ladron

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Andrew Clayton Ladron, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

E.C. Burnett, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-103

Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed
February 22, 2012   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H.
Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley
W. Elliott, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barry J. Barnette, of Spartanburg,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Andrew
Clayton Ladron appeals his conviction for lewd act upon a child, arguing the
circuit court erred in allowing the testimony of a witness because it was
irrelevant and constituted improper bolstering.  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 the appeal and
grant counsel's motion to be relieved.[1]

APPEAL DISMISSED.

FEW, C.J., HUFF and SHORT,
JJ., concur.

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