Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2005-UP-296 - State v. Jewell

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.

Brooke A. Jewell,        Appellant.


Appeal From Charleston County
Edward B. Cottingham, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-296
Submitted April 1, 2005 – Filed April 25, 2005


APPEAL DISMISSED


William J. LaLima, of Mt. Pleasant, 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 Ralph E. Hoisington, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Brooke Jewell appeals his guilty pleas to the charges of first-degree burglary and first-degree criminal sexual conduct.  The trial judge sentenced Jewell to fifteen years imprisonment for first-degree burglary and twenty-one years imprisonment for first-degree criminal sexual conduct.  The sentences were to be served concurrently.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel for Jewell attached to the final brief a petition to be relieved as counsel, stating he had reviewed the record and concluded Jewell’s appeal is without legal merit sufficient to warrant a new trial.  Jewell filed 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.