Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-264 - State v. Kight

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.

Rhonda M. Kight,        Appellant.


Appeal From Lexington County
John W. Kittredge, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-264
Submitted February 20, 2004 – Filed April 19, 2004


APPEAL DISMISSED


Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, 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 Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.


PER CURIAM:  Rhonda M. Kight pled guilty to one count of grand larceny, one count of third-degree burglary, two counts of first-degree burglary, two counts of criminal conspiracy, and two counts of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (“ABHAN”).  The circuit court sentenced her to five years imprisonment for grand larceny, five years imprisonment for third-degree burglary, fifteen years imprisonment for each count of first-degree burglary, five years imprisonment for each count of criminal conspiracy, and ten years imprisonment for each count of ABHAN.  Additionally, the circuit court revoked her probation for unrelated charges, the sentences to all run concurrently.  Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Kight’s counsel attached a petition to be relieved.  Kight did not file a pro se response.

After 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 dismiss Kight’s appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED. [1]

HEARN, C.J., GOOLSBY, and HOWARD, JJ., concurring.


[1] Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.