Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2006-UP-187 - State v. Shine

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.

George Shine, Appellant.


Appeal From Charleston County
  Deadra L. Jefferson, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-187
Submitted April 1, 2006 – Filed April 10, 2006


APPEAL DISMISSED


Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, 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 Ralph E. Hoisington, of Charleston; for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: George Shine appeals from his convictions for assault and battery with intent to kill (ABWIK) and failure to stop for a blue light. He argues the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to try him for ABWIK because the indictment failed to allege all of the elements of ABWIK.    Shine’s counsel attached to the brief a petition to be relieved as counsel, stating she had reviewed the record and concluded Shine’s appeal lacks merit.  Shine filed a separate pro se brief, in which he argues “he is being held unlawfully because he was sentenced under a statutory scheme that is unconstitutional because it exposes him to an incarcerative [sic] term that is greater than that which is provided for by law.”  After a thorough review of the record, Shine’s brief, and counsel’s brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we dismiss[1] Shine’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.