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Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-572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.