Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2005-UP-261 - State v. Bailey

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.

Jeff Bailey, Appellant.


Appeal From Spartanburg County
 J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-261
Submitted April 1, 2005 – Filed April 7, 2005


APPEAL DISMISSED


Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, 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 Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Jeff Bailey appeals his guilty pleas for two counts of second-degree burglary and two counts of petit larceny.  The trial judge sentenced Bailey to time-served for the petit larceny charges and to fifteen years imprisonment suspended upon the service of eight years and five years probation for the second-degree burglary charges.  The sentences were to be served concurrently.  During the probationary period, the judge ordered Bailey to register as a sexual offender, attend sexual offender counseling, and undergo random drug and alcohol testing.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Bailey attached to the final brief a petition to be relieved as counsel, stating she had reviewed the record and concluded Bailey’s appeal is without legal merit sufficient to warrant a new trial.  Bailey did not file a separate pro se response.

After a thorough review of the record pursuant to Anders and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.[1]

ANDERSON, BEATTY, and SHORT, 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 Rule 215, SCACR.