State v. Baskin

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON
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.

John D. Baskin,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Abbeville County

James W. Johnson, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-151

Submitted January 28, 2004 – Filed March 2, 2004

APPEAL DISMISSED

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

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor William Townes Jones, of Greenwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  John D. Baskin was convicted
of one count each of distribution of crack cocaine and distribution of crack
cocaine within close proximity of a school.  Baskin’s appellate counsel has
petitioned to be relieved as counsel, stating he has reviewed the record and
has concluded Baskin’s appeal is without merit.  The sole issue briefed by counsel
concerns whether the circuit court erred in refusing to grant a jury charge
on simple possession of crack cocaine, which Baskin’s appellate counsel contends
is a lesser included offense of the crimes for which he was charged.  In a separate
pro se brief, Baskin alleges prosecutorial misconduct.

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 there are no directly appealable issues
that are arguable on their merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss Baskin’s appeal
and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.1

APPEAL DISMISSED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, 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.