Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2005-UP-101 - State v. Richardson

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.

Alonzo Richardson,        Appellant.


Appeal From Newberry County
James W. Johnson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-101
Submitted February 1, 2005 – Filed February 10, 2005


APPEAL DISMISSED


Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all of Columbia; and Solicitor William Townes Jones, of Greenwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Alonzo Richardson appeals from his conviction for assault and battery with intent to kill, arguing the trial court erred by trying him in absentia without making findings of fact prior to trial that (1) he received notice of his right to be present and (2) he had been warned the trial would proceed in his absence if he failed to attend court.  Richardson’s counsel attached to the brief a petition to be relieved as counsel, stating that he had reviewed the record and concluded this appeal lacks merit. Richardson filed a separate pro se brief, arguing the trial court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction, (2) erred in failing to grant a directed verdict, and (3) erred in trying him in absentia.  After a thorough review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Richardson’s pro se brief 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 [1] Richardson’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., KITTREDGE and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.


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