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

In The Interest of A., Corey, A Juvenile Under The Age of Seventeen, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County
 Donna S. Strom, Family Court Judge
 Kellum W. Allen, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2006-UP-195
Submitted April 1, 2006 – Filed April 12, 2006

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, 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. Elliott, Office of the Attorney General, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  On September 8, 2004, Investigator A.W. Branham swore out a juvenile petition against sixteen year-old Corey A.  The petition alleged that over a period of two months Corey engaged in criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the second degree.  Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled guilty to the lesser-included offense of ABHAN on November 16, 2004.  The court adjudicated Corey delinquent and ordered him to undergo a community evaluation.  Subsequently, on March 16, 2005, Corey reappeared before the family court for a dispositional hearing.  The court committed him to the Department of Juvenile Justice for a period not to exceed his twenty-first birthday.  Corey appeals arguing the family court failed to comply with the mandates set forth in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969).  Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Corey’s counsel attached a petition to be relieved, stating she reviewed the record and concluded this appeal lacks merit.

After a thorough review of the record pursuant to Anders and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.[1]

BEATTY, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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