State v. Hudson

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.

John David
Hudson, Appellant.

Appeal From Darlington County

James E. Lockemy, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-563

Submitted October 1, 2008 – Filed October
13, 2008   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, 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:  John David Hudson appeals his convictions of two
counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, attempting or committing
a lewd action upon a child, and first degree sexual exploitation of a minor.  Hudson’s counsel argues the trial court erred by admitting two photographs into evidence,
maintaining their prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value.  Hudson filed a separate pro se brief reasserting his counsel’s argument and contending the
trial court erred by admitting illegally obtained evidence and violated his due
process rights by not allowing him to cross-examine two individuals.  After a thorough review of the record and both briefs
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 Hudson’s appeal
and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved. [1]

APPEAL
DISMISSED. 

ANDERSON, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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