State v. Stinson

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.

Rollie Stinson, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-669

Submitted December 1, 2008 – Filed
December 8, 2008   

APPEAL DISMISSED

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, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Rollie
Stinson appeals his driving under the influence conviction and sentence of five
years imprisonment.  Stinson’s counsel argues the trial court erred by
admitting the Datamaster results because the administrator of the test did not
establish the machine was in working order.  Stinson filed a pro se brief, containing a multitude of arguments.   After a thorough review of the record and both briefs
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 Stinson’s appeal
and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved. [1]

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

ANDERSON, HUFF, and
THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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