State v. Sebold

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)(1), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Raymond Sebold, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

 Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-252

Submitted April 1, 2005 – Filed April 7, 2005

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Raymond Sebold appeals from his Alford plea to assault and battery with intent to kill, arguing his plea did not comply with the mandates of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969).  Sebold’s counsel attached to the final brief a petition to be relieved as counsel, stating he had 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[1] the appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

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