State v. Dillard

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.

David Dillard, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-321
Submitted June 1, 2007 – Filed June 15, 2007

---

APPEAL DISMISSED

---

Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, South Carolina Commission on Indigent 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, of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  David Dillard appeals his convictions for obtaining goods by false pretenses and exploitation of a vulnerable adult.  Dillard argues the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict on the exploitation of a vulnerable adult charge because the State failed to prove the victim met the statutory definition of a vulnerable adult.

After a thorough review of the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se 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.

APPEAL DISMISSED. [1] 

STILWELL, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

---

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