Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2006-UP-222 - State v. Lilly
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

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.

Thurman V. Lilly, Appellant.


Appeal From Georgetown County
Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-222
Submitted April 1, 2006 – Filed April 19, 2006 


APPEAL DISMISSED


Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, of Columbia; and Mr. Thurman V. Lilly, of Ridgeville, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott Sr. Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Thurman Lilly appeals his convictions of assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct in the first degree and criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature.  Lilly claims the trial court erred when it refused to allow evidence of the victim’s previous sexual conduct based on the Rape Shield Statute.  S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-659.1 (2003).  Lilly filed a pro se brief asserting: (1) indictment for assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct in the first degree was defective on its face; (2) the State was required to elect between the two indictments because a defendant can not be convicted of both an offense and a lesser-included offense when they are established by the very same acts; (3) the trial court erred in ruling Lilly’s arrest, arrest warrant, search, and search warrant were legal and valid; (4) the trial court erred in denying his motions for a directed verdict; and (5) the trial court erred in denying his motions to suppress a 911 tape and photographs.  After a thorough review of the record 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] Lilly’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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


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