State v. Middleton

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTAL VALUE. 
IT SHOULD NO BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PREDECENT 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.

Frank Middleton,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

Deadra L. Jefferson, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-140

Submitted December 23, 2003 – Filed
March 1, 2004

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, Office of Appellate
Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson,
all of Columbia; and Solicitor Ralph E. Hoisington, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Middleton was convicted of
robbery, and he was sentenced.  The issue briefed by appellate counsel concerns
whether the trial court erred in denying Middleton’s motion for directed verdict. 
Middleton’s counsel has petitioned to be relieved as counsel, stating that she
has reviewed the record and has concluded Middleton’s appeal is without merit. 
Middleton has filed a pro se brief, raising issues of subject matter
jurisdiction and ineffective assistance of counsel and alleging error in: admitting
a confessional statement, admitting a photo lineup, denying requests to charge,
overruling an objection during State’s opening statement, and admission of expert
witness testimony. 

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 Middleton’s
appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved. [1]    

APPEAL DISMISSED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur. 
 

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