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.

Lagerald Feon Dunham, Appellant.

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 05-UP-624

Submitted December 1, 2005 – Filed December 9, 2005

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all of Columbia; Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Lagerald Feon Dunham appeals his convictions for possession of marijuana and possession of crack cocaine.  The trial court sentenced Dunham to one year for possession of marijuana and a concurrent term of ten years and a $10,000 fine for possession of crack-cocaine.  Moreover, the trial court revoked Dunham’s probationary sentence for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature and reinstated his eight-year sentence on that conviction, to be served concurrently with the other sentences.  Dunham alleges the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict.  Counsel for Dunham attached to the final brief a petition to be relieved as counsel.  Dunham filed a pro se brief contending that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because of an allegedly defective indictment, and that the State failed to comply with Rule 6(a)(2), SCRCrimP. 

After a thorough review of the record as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we dismiss Dunham’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.[1]

APPEAL DISMISSED.

STILWELL, KITTREDGE, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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