ECF No. 20-6 at 62, 118, 122-23. The PCR court found Petitioner could not maintain a claim for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because he filed a pro se response to counsel's Anders brief raising the issue involving the statements, and therefore the appellate court (the South Carolina Court of Appeals) would necessarily have reviewed the issue pursuant to the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court find the PCR court's decision is neither contrary to Supreme Court precedent nor an unreasonable application of the law or the facts.

In its opinion dismissing Petitioner's appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals stated the following: After review of the record 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 Gary's appeal and grant counsel's petition to be relieved. [App. 2618-19.]

according to Anders, the reviewing court is obligated to make a full examination of the proceedings on its own. SeeState v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991). After such an examination, if the reviewing court agrees with the attorney, it may dismiss the appeal or proceed to a decision on the merits.

On September 11, 2013, the South Carolina Court of Appeals granted certiorari and proceeded with review of Petitioner's direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986). After a thorough review of the record and all briefs pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and granted counsel's motion to be relieved. The Remittitur was issued on September 27, 2013.

If no issue of arguable merit is discovered, the appeal will be dismissed and counsel's petition to be relieved will be granted." State v. Williams. 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991).

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the South Carolina Court of Appeals. The appeal was reviewed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Williams, 406 S.E.2d 357 (S.C. 1991). The appeal was dismissed on June 21, 2000.

Mr. Savitz certified to the court that the appeal was without merit and asked to be relieved as counsel. On October 12, 2007, after a thorough review of the record pursuant to Anders and State v. Williams, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), the South Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner's direct appeal and granted appellate counsel's request to be relieved. State v. Eric Dwayne Blackwell, Unpublished Op. No. 2007-UP-483 (S.C. Ct. App.2007).

See State v.Owens, Op. No. 2003-UP-120 (S.C. Ct. App., filed May 21, 2002). The South Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal after its review of the record under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116 (1991). The petitioner did not seek rehearing or certiorari to the South Carolina Supreme Court.

IX. Did the trial court err when it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because of affiant's false affidavit and false testimony before the State's grand jury? The South Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Williams, 406 S.E.2d 357 (S.C. 1991), and it granted appellate counsel's request to be relieved. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied Petitioner's pro se petition for a rehearing.

Richardson filed a pro se response. After review of the record 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 Richardson's appeal and grant counsel's petition to be relieved. APPEAL DISMISSED.