State v. Murray
State v. Murray
Opinion
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
v.
Leon Murray, Appellant.
Appeal From Dorchester County
James C. Williams, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-217
Submitted April 1, 2006 Filed April 18, 2006
APPEAL DISMISSED
Robert M. Dudek, III, Assistant Appellate Defender, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliot, Office of the Attorney General, all of Columbia; and Solicitor David M. Pascoe, Jr., of Dorchester, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Leon Murray pled guilty to the charges of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute and possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute within a half mile of a school. Murray appeals these convictions, arguing that his guilty pleas did not comply with the mandates of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Murrays counsel attached a petition to be relieved, stating he had reviewed the record and concluded the appeal is without legal merit sufficient to warrant a new trial. Murray did not file a separate pro se brief.
After a thorough review of the record 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] the appeal and grant counsels motion to be relieved.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
HEARN, C.J., ANDERSON, and KITTREDGE, 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.