State v. Dillard

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.

David Dillard, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

 Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-321

Submitted June 1, 2007 – Filed June 15,
2007

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, South Carolina Commission on
Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III,
of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  David Dillard appeals his
convictions for obtaining goods by false pretenses and exploitation of a
vulnerable adult.  Dillard argues the trial court erred by denying his motion
for a directed verdict on the exploitation of a vulnerable adult charge because
the State failed to prove the victim met the statutory definition of a
vulnerable adult.

After a thorough review of the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se 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.

APPEAL
DISMISSED. [1] 

STILWELL,
SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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