State v. Williams

Decision Date08 July 1991
CitationState v. Williams, 406 S.E.2d 357, 305 S.C. 116 (S.C. 1991)
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Ronnie WILLIAMS, Appellant.
ORDER

This case has been briefed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493(1967).Because of the apparent confusion which exists over how Anders cases are to be processed under the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, we set forth the following procedure:

(1) If appellant's counsel determines an Anders brief is appropriate, he shall serve and file the initial brief and designation of matter as provided by Rules 207and208, SCACR.The brief shall contain a petition to be relieved as counsel.

(2)The respondent may serve and file an initial brief if it desires to do so.The respondent shall not be bound by appellant's statement of the case if it fails to serve an initial brief.Even if the respondent does not prepare a brief, it may serve and file a designation of matter to be included in the record on appeal if it believes appellant's designation is insufficient for an Anders review by this Court.

(3) At the time the final brief(s) are filed with this Court, appellant's counsel shall serve appellant with a copy of the brief(s) and record on appeal.Proof of service showing that these documents have been served on appellant shall be filed with the Court.The Clerk's office will then give the appellant forty-five (45) days to file a pro se brief addressing any issues he wishes to raise.The...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1729 cases
  • State v. Loving
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • April 25, 2006
  • State v. Thompson
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • July 10, 2008
    ...intent to distribute cocaine within the proximity of a school. On appeal, Thompson argues the trial judge erred by accepting the guilty plea when the State failed to introduce an official drug analysis. 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] Thompson's appeal and grant counsel's motion to be relieved. APPEAL DISMISSED....
  • In re Care and Treatment of Chisolm
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • October 11, 2011
    ...the circuit court erred in denying his motion to exclude two 2003 convictions of lewd act upon a child. 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] Additionally, we note a defendant need not be informed of the consequences of the Sexually Violent Predator Act for a...
  • State v. Tyler
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • July 18, 2012
    ...murder, assault and battery with intent to kill, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, arguing the trial court erred in neglecting to instruct the jury on the defense of alibi. Additionally, Tyler filed a pro se brief. After a thorough review of the record and all briefs 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...
  • Get Started for Free