Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-414 - State v. Gosnell
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

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.

Benjamin W. Gosnell,        Appellant.


Appeal From Spartanburg County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-414
Submitted April 21, 2004 – Filed June 25, 2004


APPEAL DISMISSED


Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, 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 Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Benjamin W. Gosnell appeals his conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor.  Gosnell’s appellate counsel has petitioned to be relieved as counsel, stating she has reviewed the record and has concluded Gosnell’s appeal is without legal merit sufficient to warrant a new trial.  The issue briefed by counsel concerns whether the trial court erred in not granting Gosnell’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.  Gosnell did not file a brief with this court on his own behalf.

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 the trial court committed no error in denying Gosnell’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal, the evidence being sufficient to support his conviction and sentence.  We also hold there are no directly appealable issues in this case that are arguable on their merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss Gosnell’s appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved. [1]

APPEAL DISMISSED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.


[1]   Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rules 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.