State v. Michael Constance

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Michael Constance, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-511
Submitted October 1, 2009- Filed November 5, 2009   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, 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 Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Michael Constance appeals his guilty plea for shoplifting as a third property offense.  Constance argues the plea court erred in not considering information material to his punishment.  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 the appeal and grant counsel's motion to be relieved.[1]

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

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

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