Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2005-UP-404 - State v. Filyaw

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.

Jonathan Ray Filyaw,        Appellant.


Appeal From Florence County
James E. Brogdon, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-404
Submitted June 1, 2005 – Filed June 24, 2005


APPEAL DISMISSED


Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia,  for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Office of the Attorney General, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Filyaw was indicted for two counts of second-degree arson and one count of third-degree burglary.  He waived his right to a jury trial, had a bench trial regarding only one count of second-degree arson, and was convicted on the second-degree arson charge.  As part of a negotiated plea agreement, Filyaw pled guilty to a lesser charge of third-degree arson after his bench trial and the State dismissed his third-degree burglary charge.  The judge sentenced him to concurrent sentences of ten years imprisonment on each arson charge.  He appeals from his conviction for second-degree arson.

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

After 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]

HEARN, C.J., 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.