From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Jun 15, 2022
No. 2022-UP-263 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 15, 2022)

Opinion

2022-UP-263 Appellate Case 2020-001499

06-15-2022

The State, Respondent, v. Bryson Jamar Smith, Appellant.

Appellate Defender Adam Sinclair Ruffin, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of Columbia, for Respondent.


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 May 1, 2022

Appeal From Cherokee County R. Keith Kelly, Circuit Court Judge

Appellate Defender Adam Sinclair Ruffin, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

Dismissed after review pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel's motion to be relieved is granted.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

WILLIAMS, C.J., and KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Jun 15, 2022
No. 2022-UP-263 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 15, 2022)
Case details for

State v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. Bryson Jamar Smith, Appellant.

Court:Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: Jun 15, 2022

Citations

No. 2022-UP-263 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 15, 2022)