State v. Eubanks

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.

Freddie Eubanks, Appellant.

Appeal from Aiken County

  Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-662

Submitted December 1, 2008 – Filed
December 4, 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 Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Freddie Eubanks appeals his guilty plea to use of a vehicle without
consent.  He maintains his guilty plea failed to conform with the mandates set
forth in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969).  Specifically, Eubanks asserts
the trial court failed to ensure he was aware of the constitutional rights he
was waiving by pleading guilty.  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] Eubanks’ appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL
DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., SHORT and KONDUROS, JJ., concur

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