State v. Easterling
State v. Easterling
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.
Teddy Gerrod Easterling, Appellant.
Appeal From Darlington County
Paul M. Burch, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-181
Submitted April 1, 2006 Filed April 6, 2006
APPEAL DISMISSED
Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Jay E. Hodge, Jr., of Cheraw, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Teddy Easterling appeals his guilty plea of burglary in the second degree. Easterling argues the trial judge failed to comply with the mandates set forth in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), in accepting his plea. 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 Easterlings appeal and grant counsels motion to be relieved.
APPEAL DISMISSED.[1]
GOOLSBY, HUFF, and STILWELL, 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.