State v. Hood

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.

Tony M. Hood, Appellant.

Appeal From Lancaster County

 Paul M. Burch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2007-UP-225

Submitted May 1, 2007 – Filed May 14, 2007

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare , South Carolina Commission on Indigent 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, of Columbia; and Solicitor Doug Barfield, of Chester, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Tony Hood appeals his conviction and sentence for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature.  Hood’s counsel contends the trial court erred in admitting a weapon into evidence without direct evidence linking Hood to the weapon.  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.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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