From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Dixon

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
May 1, 2024
No. 2024-UP-151 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 1, 2024)

Opinion

2024-UP-151 Appellate Case 2021-000948

05-01-2024

The State, Respondent, v. Shakel Rakeem Dixon, Appellant.

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, and Shakel Rakeem Dixon, pro se, both for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, both of Columbia, for Respondent. Dismissed after consideration of Appellant's pro se brief and review pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel's motion to be relieved is granted.


THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

Submitted April 1, 2024

Appeal From Aiken County Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, and Shakel Rakeem Dixon, pro se, both for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

Dismissed after consideration of Appellant's pro se brief and review pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel's motion to be relieved is granted.

OPINION

PER CURIAM

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

GEATHERS, HEWITT, and VINSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Dixon

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
May 1, 2024
No. 2024-UP-151 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 1, 2024)
Case details for

State v. Dixon

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. Shakel Rakeem Dixon, Appellant.

Court:Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: May 1, 2024

Citations

No. 2024-UP-151 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 1, 2024)