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Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-532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.