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.

Wanda Kay Pruitt, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County
�G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.� 2004-UP-585
Submitted November 1, 2004 � Filed November 17, 2004

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia, for Appellant

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:� Wanda Kay Pruitt was convicted of armed robbery and conspiracy and sentenced to imprisonment for ten years on each charge, with the terms to run concurrently.� The issue briefed by appellate counsel concerns whether the circuit court improperly denied her motion for a directed verdict on the basis of a material variance between the facts alleged in her indictment for armed robbery and the evidence presented at trial.� Pruitt�s counsel has petitioned to be relieved as counsel, stating that she has reviewed the record and has concluded the appeal is without merit.� Pruitt has not filed a pro se brief.�����

After a 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 hold there are no directly appealable issues that are arguable on their merits.� Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and grant counsel�s petition to be relieved. [1] ���

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.� �