State v. Hutto

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.

Randolph Hutto,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Barnwell County

James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-647

Submitted December 1, 2004 – Filed December
21, 2004

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, 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 Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Randolph Hutto appeals
his conviction for voluntary manslaughter, arguing the trial court erred in
allowing certain testimony from an investigating officer regarding the officer’s
opinion of Hutto’s injuries and the cause of the victim’s death.  Hutto also
filed a separate pro se brief, which asserts several jurisdictional,
procedural, and substantive exceptions to the trial court’s ruling.  After a
thorough review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Hutto’s pro se
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 Hutto’s appeal
under Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.
[1]

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., GOOLSBY and WILLIAMS,
JJ., concur.

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