In the Interest of Eddie S. and Joseph S.

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

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

In
the Interest of Eddie S. and Joseph S., both being minors under
the age of seventeen, Appellants.

Appeal From Barnwell County

 Barry W. Knobel, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2008-UP-022

Submitted January 2, 2008 – Filed January
10, 2008

APPEAL DISMISSED

Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz III, South Carolina Commission, of
Columbia, for Appellants.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
Office of the Attorney General, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan,
of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Joseph
and Eddie S. (the Brothers) appeal their conviction for criminal sexual conduct
with a minor.  The Brothers argue the judge erred by allowing the Solicitor to
question them regarding their right to remain silent.  The Brothers’ counsel
attached a petition to be relieved, stating he reviewed the record and
concluded this appeal lacks merit.  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 Brothers’ appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.[1] 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

ANDERSON, SHORT AND WILLIAMS JJ., concur.

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