THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

Quincy Lowery,        Appellant.

Appeal From Marlboro County
Edward B. Cottingham, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-644
Submitted August 20, 2003 – Filed November 4, 2003

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, all of Columbia;  and Solicitor Jay E. Hodge, Jr., of Cheraw, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Quincy Lowery and three co-defendants were indicted for the armed robbery of a liquor store in McColl, South Carolina.  He was found guilty and sentenced to twenty-one years in prison.  Lowery appeals his conviction, arguing the trial court erred in allowing the victim to make an in-court identification of him based on her recollection of him from the bond hearing.      Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Lowery’s counsel attached a petition to be relieved, stating he reviewed the record and concluded this appeal lacks merit.  Lowery filed a separate pro se brief, arguing the following six issues: (1) the trial court misallocated the burden of proof by instructing the jury to acquit if the evidence demonstrated a “real possibility” of innocence; (2) the trial court denied Lowery the right to a fair and impartial jury because the jury instructions left the jurors “with no choice but to find [him] guilty”; (3) the trial court’s extra-judicial remarks at the time of sentencing demonstrated the court’s bias and “resulted in a sentence plainly violative of [Lowery’s] rights”; (4) defense counsel breached Lowery’s fiduciary duty to “shield confidences concerning [Lowery’s] alibi defense”; (5) Lowery was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to refute a number of the State’s claims; and (6) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

After a thorough review of the record and counsel’s 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] Lowery’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., CONNOR and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.