From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
May 15, 2024
No. 2024-UP-179 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 15, 2024)

Opinion

2024-UP-179 Appellate Case 2021-000939

05-15-2024

The State, Respondent, v. Brandal Smith, Appellant.

Appellate Defender Sarah Elizabeth Shipe, of Columbia, and Brandal Smith, pro se, both for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, 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 May 1, 2024

Appeal From Spartanburg County J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Appellate Defender Sarah Elizabeth Shipe, of Columbia, and Brandal Smith, pro se, both for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, 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.

PER CURIAM

Dismissed after consideration of Appellant's pro se brief and review pursuant to Anders v. California, 3 86 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel's motion to be relieved is granted.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and VERDIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
May 15, 2024
No. 2024-UP-179 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 15, 2024)
Case details for

State v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. Brandal Smith, Appellant.

Court:Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: May 15, 2024

Citations

No. 2024-UP-179 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 15, 2024)