State v. Grant

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.

Jimmy Laverne Grant,        Appellant.

Appeal From Orangeburg County
Edward B. Cottingham, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-182
Submitted March 1, 2005 Filed March 11, 2005

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, Office of Appellate 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, all of Columbia; and Solicitor David M. Pascoe, Jr., of Orangeburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Jimmy Laverne Grant appeals his conviction for assault and battery of a high and aggrevated nature (ABHAN), arguing the indictment for first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-1st) failed to allege the nature of the underlying sexual battery, thus depriving the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction.  Pursuant to Anders v. California, 486 U.S. 738 (1967), Grant's counsel attached a petition to be relieved as counsel to the final brief, stating she had reviewed the record and concluded this appeal lacks merit.  Grant did not file a separate pro se brief. 

After a review of the record as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we hold there are no directly appealable issues that are arguable on their merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and grant counsel's petition to be relieved.[1]   

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., KITTREDGE and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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