Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2006-UP-210 - State v. Mintz

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.

Christopher B. Mintz, Appellant.


Appeal From Charleston County
Daniel F. Pieper, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-210   
Submitted April 1, 2006 – Filed April 17, 2006


APPEAL DISMISSED


Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, Christopher B. Mintz, of Ridgeville, 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, of Columbia, Ralph E. Hoisington, Ninth Circuit Solicitor’s Office, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Appellant, Christopher B. Mintz, pled guilty to armed robbery and conspiracy.  He also pled guilty to a reduced charge of voluntary manslaughter.  The trial judge sentenced him to concurrent terms of twenty-one years on the voluntary manslaughter and armed robbery charges.  The sentence on the criminal conspiracy charge was for five years and it was also concurrent.  Mintz’s counsel attached to the brief a petition to be relieved as counsel, stating that she had reviewed the record and concluded this appeal lacks merit.  Mintz did not file a separate pro se brief.

After a thorough review of the record 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] the appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and STILWELL, JJ., concur.


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