State v. Salinas

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.

Rodolfo A. Salinas       
Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-572

Submitted November 1, 2004 – Filed November 16, 2004

APPEAL DISMISSED

Acting Deputy Chief Attorney Wanda P. Hagler, 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 Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Rodolfo A. Salinas
appeals his conviction for trafficking in cocaine, arguing the trial court erred
in admitting evidence of a prior drug transaction.  In his pro se
brief, Salinas argues the State failed to satisfy its burden of proof.  After
a thorough review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Salinas’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 Salinas’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.