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Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-541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.