State v. Gainey

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.

Louis Gainey,
Jr., Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-057  

Submitted January 3, 2012 – Filed February
1, 2012

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of
Columbia, and Louis Gainey, pro se, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Solicitor Daniel E. Johnson, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Louis
Gainey, Jr., appeals his conviction for assault and battery with intent to kill,
arguing the circuit court erred in charging the jury that malice may be
inferred from the use of a deadly weapon because evidence was presented that
would have reduced the charge to assault and battery of a high and aggravated
nature.  Additionally, Gainey asserts several pro se arguments.  After a thorough review of the record and all briefs
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] the appeal and grant counsel's motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

SHORT,
WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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