State v. Clark

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.

Tracey Clark,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Orangeburg County

Edward B. Cottingham, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-491

Submitted September 15, 2004 – Filed
September 22, 2004

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, 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,
all of Columbia; and Solicitor Walter M. Bailey, Jr., of Summerville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Tracey Clark appeals his conviction
for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, arguing the trial court
erred by failing to suppress the evidence of drugs because the State failed
to use forms mandated by SLED to establish the chain of custody.  Pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Clark’s counsel attached a
petition to be relieved as counsel, stating she reviewed the record and concluded
this appeal lacks merit.  Clark filed a separate pro se brief, arguing
that a “rational trier of fact” could not have found him guilty of all essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  After a thorough review of
the record and counsel’s brief 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 dismiss [1] Clark’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

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