Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-245 - State v. Hullett

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.

Phillip Thomas Hullett,        Appellant.


Appeal From York County
Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-245
Submitted February 23, 2004 – Filed April 15, 2004


APPEAL DISMISSED


Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda H. Haile, 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 Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.


PER CURIAM:  Phillip Thomas Hullett appeals the circuit court’s denial of his request for a bond pending appeal of his conviction for a trafficking powder cocaine, distribution of marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and distribution of marijuana.  Hullett’s appellate counsel has petitioned to be relieved as counsel, stating she has reviewed the record and concluded Hullett’s appeal is without merit.  The sole issue briefed by counsel argues the circuit court erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear Hullett’s bond request.  In a separate pro se response brief, Hullett argues the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress drug evidence.

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 Todd’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.