From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Jun 7, 2023
No. 2023-UP-218 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 7, 2023)

Opinion

2023-UP-218 Appellate Case 2021-000431

06-07-2023

The State, Respondent, v. Lavar Anthony Smith, Appellant.

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, and Lavar A. Smith, pro se, both for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, 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, 2023

Appeal From Marion County Robert J. Bonds, Circuit Court Judge

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, and Lavar A. Smith, pro se, both for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

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.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Jun 7, 2023
No. 2023-UP-218 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 7, 2023)
Case details for

State v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. Lavar Anthony Smith, Appellant.

Court:Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: Jun 7, 2023

Citations

No. 2023-UP-218 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 7, 2023)