Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2007-UP-266 - State v. Dator

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.

James J. Dator, Appellant.


Appeal From Charleston County
 Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-266
Submitted June 1, 2007 – Filed June 5, 2007


APPEAL DISMISSED


Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins and Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, both 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:  James R. Dator was convicted of first-degree burglary and two counts of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN).  He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole on the burglary charge under the “two strikes” statute.  He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine on each of the ABHAN convictions, with the sentences to run consecutive to the life without parole sentence but to run concurrently with each other.  Dator appeals.

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

After a thorough review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Dator’s pro se 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] Dator’s appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

ANDERSON, HUFF, and BEATTY, 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.