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.

Antoine Christopher Smith, Appellant.

Appeal From York County
 Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-435
Submitted October 1, 2007 – Filed October 9, 2007   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Chief Attorney for Capital Appeals Joseph L. Savitz, III, 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 Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Antoine Christopher Smith appeals his conviction for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature.  Smith argues the trial court erred by refusing to suppress victim’s identification of Smith because the identification was irreparably tainted by an unduly suggestive identification procedure by the police several days after the incident.  Smith did not file a pro se response brief.  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 Smith’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.[1]

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

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