State v. Clark ( 2004 )

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.

Tracey Clark, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Orangeburg County
Edward B. Cottingham, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-491
Submitted September 15, 2004 – Filed September 22, 2004

---

APPEAL DISMISSED

---

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, 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 Walter M. Bailey, Jr., of Summerville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Tracey Clark appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, arguing the trial court erred by failing to suppress the evidence of drugs because the State failed to use forms mandated by SLED to establish the chain of custody.  Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Clark’s counsel attached a petition to be relieved as counsel, stating she reviewed the record and concluded this appeal lacks merit.  Clark filed a separate pro se brief, arguing that a “rational trier of fact” could not have found him guilty of all essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  After a thorough review of the record and counsel’s 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 [1] Clark’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., HUFF and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.

---

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