State v. Passmore ( 2006 )

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.

Ricky Eugene Passmore, Appellant.

---

Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-060
Submitted January 3, 2006 – Filed January 26, 2006

---

APPEAL DISMISSED

---

Acting Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, 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 Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Ricky Eugene Passmore appeals his conviction for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature.  Passmore’s counsel argues the trial court erred in accepting Passmore’s plea without a sufficient factual basis to support the charge against him.  “All that is required before a plea can be accepted is that the defendant understand the nature and crucial elements of the charges, the consequences of the plea, and the constitutional rights he is waiving, and that the record reflect a factual basis for the plea.”  Rollison v. State, 346 S.C. 506, 511, 552 S.E.2d 290, 292 (2001); State v. Thomason, 355 S.C. 278, 283, 584 S.E.2d 143, 145 (Ct. App. 2003).    Accordingly, 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] Passmore’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., and HUFF and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

---

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