Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-128 - State v. Hurt

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.

William Hurt, Jr.,        Appellant.


Appeal From Aiken County
 William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-128
Submitted December 23, 2003 – Filed February 26, 2004


APPEAL DISMISSED


Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda P. Hagler, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh,  Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, all of Columbia;  and Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Hurt was convicted of five counts of burglary, and he was sentenced.  The issues briefed by appellate counsel concerns whether the trial court erred by: 1) allowing the State to introduce Hurt’s two prior burglary convictions as an aggravating circumstance when the facts suggested that the “nighttime” element would have sufficed; and 2) allowing the two prior burglary convictions to establish the aggravating circumstance element when the prior convictions arose out of a single incident and would constitute one offense under S.C. Code § 17-25-50.  Hurt’s counsel attached a petition to be relieved as counsel, stating that she had reviewed the record and concluded Hurt’s appeal is without legal merit.  In a response brief, Hurt raises three issues pertaining to subject matter jurisdiction. 

After a thorough review of the record 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 hold there are no directly appealable issues that are arguable on their merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss Hurt’s appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved. [1]    

APPEAL DISMISSED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.   


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