Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-541 - State v. Goodman

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Edmond Goodman, Appellant.


Appeal From Williamsburg County
Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-541
Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed December 5, 2011


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Brendan J. McDonald, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Ernest A. Finney, III, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Edmond Goodman appeals his convictions for murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime.  He argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to relieve counsel.[1]  We affirm.[2]          

"A motion to relieve counsel is addressed to the discretion of the trial [court] and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion."  State v. Childers, 373 S.C. 367, 372, 645 S.E.2d 233, 235 (2007).  "The movant bears the burden to show satisfactory cause for removal."  Id.  In evaluating whether a trial court abused its discretion in a motion for substitution of counsel, the court may consider the following factors: "timeliness of the motion, adequacy of the trial [court]'s inquiry into the defendant's complaint, and whether the attorney-client conflict was so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication, thereby preventing an adequate defense."  State v. Sims, 304 S.C. 409, 414, 405 S.E.2d 377, 380 (1991).  In the instant case, the trial court conducted a sufficient inquiry into the basis of Goodman's complaints against his counsel.  The trial court inquired regarding counsel's preparations for trial, his communications with Goodman, and general experience with criminal cases and determined Goodman's counsel was adequately prepared to go forward with the case.  Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Goodman's motion to relieve counsel. 

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


[1] Although Goodman argues on appeal the trial court violated his right to proceed pro se, a review of the record reveals Goodman did not move to proceed pro se at trial.  Accordingly, this argument is not preserved for review.  See S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301-02, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007) (finding issues must be "raised to and ruled upon in the trial court" to be considered on appeal).     

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