State v. Hamilton ( 2009 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Thomas Curtis Hamilton, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Charleston County
Honorable R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-448
Submitted September 1, 2009 – Filed October 7, 2009   

---

APPEAL DISMISSED

---

Chief Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, 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 Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Thomas Hamilton appeals his first-degree burglary conviction, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the victim's identification of him because the identification was the product of an unduly suggestive show-up.  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 the appeal and grant counsel's motion to be relieved.[1] 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

---

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