State v. MacFarland
State v. MacFarland
Opinion
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
v.
Michael MacFarland, Appellant,
Appeal From Charleston County
Deadra L. Jefferson, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-554
Submitted July 15, 2003 Filed September
25, 2003
APPEAL DISMISSED
Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda H. Haile, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Ralph E. Hoisington, of Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Michael MacFarland appeals his conviction for possession of heroin, arguing the lower court erred in allowing the State to exercise three peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner. MacFarlands counsel attached to the brief a petition to be relieved as counsel, stating that she had reviewed the record and concluded this appeal lacks merit. MacFarland filed a separate pro se brief arguing his rights have been denied based on certain technicalities. After a thorough review of the record, MacFarlands pro se brief, and counsels brief 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 [1] MacFarlands appeal and grant counsels motion to be relieved.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
HEARN, C.J., CONNOR and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.
[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.