Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-095 - State v. Bell

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Corlas Lamon Bell, Appellant.


Appeal From Marion County 
James E. Brogdon, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-095
Submitted December 23, 2003 – Filed February 13, 2004


APPEAL DISMISSED


Assistant Appellant Defender Robert M. Dudek, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant,

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent.


PER CURIAM:  Bell was convicted of murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, and he was sentenced.  The issue briefed by counsel concerns whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow defense counsel to offer evidence that Bell was originally indicted for two murders and one count of assault and battery with intent to kill, all three crimes of which arose out of the same incident.  Specifically, counsel argues the fact that the State nol prossed two of the three charges against Bell is relevant to the strength of its case.  Bell’s appellate counsel has petitioned to be relieved as counsel, stating that she has reviewed the record and has concluded Bell’s appeal is without merit.  Bell has filed a pro se brief, raising the same issue, along with allegations of error in: admitting testimony, admitting an oral statement made by him, and denying counsel’s motion for directed verdict.    

After a thorough review of the record 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 hold there are no directly appealable issues that are arguable on their merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss Bell’s appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved. [1]    

APPEAL DISMISSED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, J.J., concur.   


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