State v. Murray

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.

Rodney Terrance
Murray, Appellant.

Appeal from Spartanburg County

 J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-532

Submitted September 2, 2008 – Filed
September 11, 2008   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliot, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Harold W. Gawdy, III, of Spartanburg,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Rodney Terrance Murray was convicted of
kidnapping and criminal sexual conduct in the first degree. He was sentenced to
two concurrent terms of thirty years in prison.  Murray’s counsel attached to
the final brief a petition to be relieved as counsel, stating he had reviewed
the record and concluded this appeal lacked merit.  Murray also filed a pro se brief.  On appeal, Murray’s counsel argues the court erred in refusing
to excuse a juror, for cause, who was the second cousin of the state’s main
witness against the appellant. 
Murray filed a pro se brief, and argued: (1) the trial judge erred in failing to excuse
the same juror for cause; (2) the trial judge erred in denying Murray’s trial
counsel review of mental health provider Ms. Hamrick’s records; (3) the trial
judge erred by allowing prosecutorial misconduct in the opening statement,
insofar as the state misstated the evidence; and (4) the trial judge erred in
accepting the guilty plea of Murray’s co-defendant.  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 the appeal and
grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.[1]

APPEAL
DISMISSED.

SHORT,
THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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