Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2006-UP-154 - State v. Grier

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.

Samuel Lee Grier, Appellant.


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


Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-154
Submitted March 1, 2006 – Filed March 15, 2006


APPEAL DISMISSED


Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all of Columbia; and Solicitor John Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Samuel Lee Grier appeals his convictions for assault of a high and aggravated nature (AHAN), assault while resisting arrest, failure to stop for a blue light, and possession of heroin.  The trial judge sentenced Grier to ten years imprisonment for AHAN, ten years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine for assault while resisting arrest, three years imprisonment for failure to stop for a blue light, and five years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine for possession of heroin.  The sentences were to be served consecutively.  In addition, the judge revoked Grier’s probation for another charge of failure to stop for a blue light and imposed a concurrent sentence to the other charge for the same offense.

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

After a thorough review of the record and briefs 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]

BEATTY, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, 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.