Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-229 - State v. Scott

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.

Gary S. Scott,        Appellant.


Appeal From Dillon County
James E. Lockemy, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-229
Submitted January 29, 2004 – Filed March 31, 2004


APPEAL DISMISSED


Deputy Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Jay E. Hodge, Jr., of Cheraw, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Gary S. Scott appeals his convictions for armed robbery, grand larceny, and murder.  Scott’s appellate counsel has petitioned to be relieved as counsel, stating he has reviewed the record and has concluded Scott’s appeal is without merit.  The issue briefed by counsel concerns whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence an incriminating statement the police obtained from Scott allegedly in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).  Scott has filed a brief with this court on his own behalf with ten arguments.

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 in this case that are arguable on their merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss Scott’s appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.1

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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


1 Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rules 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.