State v. Rayfield

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.

Anthony Rayfield, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

John W. Kittredge, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-485

Submitted September 14, 2004 – Filed
September 20, 2004

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
and Assistant Attorney General W. Rutledge Martin, all of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Anthony Rayfield was
indicted by the York County Grand Jury for distribution of crack cocaine (third
offense) and possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute.  A
jury convicted Rayfield of both charges, and he received two concurrent prison
terms of eighteen years each.  Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), Rayfield’s appellate counsel filed an appeal and a petition
to be relieved as counsel, arguing in the Anders brief that the trial
court erred in consolidating the charges.  This court denied counsel’s petition
to be relieved and ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether, in light
of this court’s decision in State v. Chisolm, 355 S.C. 175, 584 S.E.2d
401 (Ct. App. 2003), the trial court erred in denying Rayfield’s motion to suppress
the crack cocaine evidence based on the ground that the State failed to prove
a sufficient chain of custody.  The rebriefing order further noted that the
chain of custody was the only issue of colorable merit.

After reviewing the record, briefs of
counsel, and applicable case law, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR,
and the following authorities:  State v. Carter, 344 S.C. 419, 424, 544
S.E.2d 835, 837 (2001) (“[W]here there is a weak link in the chain of custody,
as opposed to a missing link, the question is only one of credibility and not
admissibility.”); State v. Williams, 297 S.C. 290, 293, 376 S.E.2d 773,
774 (1989) (holding the chain of custody of the defendant’s blood sample that
was used for a blood alcohol test was sufficiently established through the introduction
of an initialed form that complied with hospital protocol and the testing nurse’s
testimony, notwithstanding that the nurse who actually drew the blood did not
testify); and State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18,25, 27, 598 S.E.2d 735, 737
(Ct. App. 2004) (en banc) (holding that “[i]f the identity of each person in
the chain handling the evidence is established, and the manner of handling is
reasonably demonstrated, no abuse of discretion is shown in the admission, absent
proof of tampering, bad faith, or ill-motive” and overruling Chisolm
to the extent that the decision requires the testimony of each person in the
chain of custody under all circumstances). [1]

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, ANDERSON, and WILLIAMS, JJ.,
concur.

[1]   Because oral argument would not aid the court in deciding the issue
on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rules 215
and 220(b)(2), SCACR.