Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-586 - State v. Kershaw

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.

Devin Jamaal Kershaw, Appellant.


Appeal From Richland County
 Reginald I. Lloyd, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-586
Submitted November 1, 2004 – Filed November 17, 2004


APPEAL DISMISSED


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

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Devin Jamaal Kershaw appeals his conviction for armed robbery, kidnapping, financial transaction card theft, and use of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime.  Kershaw’s appellate counsel has petitioned to be relieved as counsel, stating she has reviewed the record and has concluded Kershaw’s appeal is without merit.  The sole issue briefed by counsel concerns whether the circuit court adequately informed Kershaw of the possible sentencing consequences before accepting his plea, as required under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969).  Kershaw did not file a separate pro se reply 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.

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.   


 1  We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rules 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.