Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2006-UP-157 - State v. Beyah
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

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.

Jalal F. Beyah, Appellant.


Appeal from Charleston County
 Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-157
Submitted March 1, 2006 – Filed March 15, 2006


APPEAL DISMISSED


Acting Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, 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, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Ralph E. Hoisington, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Jalal F. Beyah appeals his convictions for two counts of kidnapping, one count of robbery, and one count of attempted robbery.  Beyah’s appellate counsel has petitioned to be relieved as counsel, stating he has reviewed the record and concluded Beyah’s appeal is without merit.  The sole issue briefed by counsel concerns whether the circuit court erred by holding the State did not violate Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), when it struck certain jurors.  Beyah did not file a separate pro se brief.

After a review of the record as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we hold there are no directly appealable issues that are arguable on their merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.1

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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


1   We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rules 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.