Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-233 - State v. Rhodes

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.

Eddie Eugene Rhodes,        Appellant.


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


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-233
Submitted January 29, 2004 – Filed March 31, 2004


APPEAL DISMISSED


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

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, of Columbia; Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Appellant was convicted of assault and battery with intent to kill, possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, and possession of a pistol by a person convicted of a crime of violence, and he was sentenced.  The issue briefed by appellate counsel concerns the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for directed verdict.  Appellant’s counsel has petitioned to be relieved as counsel, stating that she has reviewed the record and has concluded the appeal is without merit.  Appellant has filed a pro se brief, alleging error in the denial of his motion for directed verdict and violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.  

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 this appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved. [1]    

APPEAL DISMISSED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur. 


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