State v. Cook ( 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.

Carl D. Cook, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Lexington County
J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-003
Submitted January 3, 2006 – Filed January 4, 2006

---

APPEAL DISMISSED

---

Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, 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, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Carl Cook appeals his guilty plea to two counts of criminal sexual conduct.  He maintains his guilty plea failed to conform with the mandates set forth in Boykin v. Alabama because the trial judge failed to adequately inform him of the constitutional rights he waived by entering a guilty plea.  395 U.S. 238 (1969).  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 Cook’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.[1]

GOOLSBY, ANDERSON, and SHORT, JJ., concur.

---

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