State v. Rhodes
State v. Rhodes
Opinion
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.
Eugene Lamont Rhodes, Appellant.
Appeal From Williamsburg County
Howard P. King,
Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion
No. 2007-UP-400
Submitted September
1, 2007 Filed September 28, 2007
APPEAL DISMISSED
Aileen P. Clare, Appellate Defender, of Columbia; for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, of Columbia; and C. Kelly Jackson, Solicitor, of Sumter, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Eugene Lamont Rhodes appeals his convictions for possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, and possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute within proximity of a public park, arguing the trial court erred in not granting his motion for a directed verdict. After a thorough review of the record and counsels 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 Rhodess appeal and grant counsels motion to be relieved.[1]
APPEAL DISMISSED.
HEARN, C.J., and HUFF and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.
[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.