Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2006-UP-158 - State v. Edmonds

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.

Raymond Edmonds, Jr., Appellant.


Appeal From Richland County
 Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-158
Submitted March 1, 2006 – Filed March 15, 2006


APPEAL DISMISSED


Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM: Raymond Edmonds, Jr. appeals his convictions for trafficking in crack cocaine, possession with intent to distribute (PWID) marijuana, and possession of a stolen pistol. Edmonds’ counsel filed a brief in which she argued the trial court erred by refusing to order the State to provide the defense with the name of the confidential informant.  Attached to that brief was a petition from Edmonds’ counsel requesting to be relieved, explaining she has reviewed the record and concluded this appeal is without merit.  Edmonds filed a separate pro se brief arguing the trial court erred in: (1) failing to compel the State to reveal the identity of the confidential informant and (2) failing to suppress the search warrant. 

After a thorough review of the records and briefs 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.

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


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