State v. Rhodes

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.

Eddie Eugene Rhodes,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Union County

Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-233

Submitted January 29, 2004 – Filed March 31, 2004

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, of Columbia,
for Appellant,

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson,
of Columbia; Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Appellant was convicted of
assault and battery with intent to kill, possession of a firearm during the
commission of a violent crime, and possession of a pistol by a person convicted
of a crime of violence, and he was sentenced.  The issue briefed by appellate
counsel concerns the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for directed
verdict.  Appellant’s counsel has petitioned to be relieved as counsel, stating
that she has reviewed the record and has concluded the appeal is without merit. 
Appellant has filed a pro se brief, alleging error in the denial of his
motion for directed verdict and violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.  

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 this 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.