State v. Siders

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: November 15, 2017
• Docket: 2017-UP-429
• Status: Unpublished

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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Albert Edward Siders, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000995

Appeal From Colleton County Thomas W. Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-429 Submitted October 1, 2017 – Filed November 15, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Laura Ruth Baer, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General William Frederick Schumacher, IV, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of Bluffton, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Albert Edward Siders appeals his convictions of armed robbery, kidnapping, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, for which he was sentenced to life without parole. Siders argues the circuit court erred in denying his motion to relieve counsel due to a conflict of interest that arose when Siders named his counsel as a defendant in a civil action he filed in federal court.1 Siders also argues the circuit court should have advised him of his right to proceed pro se. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Childers, 373 S.C. 367, 372, 645 S.E.2d 233, 235 (2007) ("A motion to relieve counsel is addressed to the discretion of the [circuit court] and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion."); id. ("The movant bears the burden to show satisfactory cause for removal."); State v. Gregory, 364 S.C. 150, 152–53, 612 S.E.2d 449, 450 (2005) ("The mere possibility defense counsel may have a conflict of interest is insufficient to impugn a criminal conviction."); Duncan v. State, 281 S.C. 435, 438, 315 S.E.2d 809, 811 (1984) (holding that merely "stat[ing] in a conclusory fashion that there was a conflict of interest" with "no evidence in the record to support the conclusion" is insufficient to show an actual conflict of interest); Richardson v. State, 377 S.C. 103, 107, 659 S.E.2d 493, 495 (2008) (per curiam) (providing in the post-conviction relief context that the filing of a disciplinary complaint against counsel should not result in the automatic removal of counsel); State v. Sims, 304 S.C. 409, 415, 405 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1991) ("The right to appear pro se must be clearly asserted by the defendant before trial.").

AFFIRMED.2

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

1 Our record indicates the federal action relates to "jail conditions, lock-up status, and access to meaningful exercise of recreation" as opposed to counsel's representation of Siders. 2 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.