State v. Siders

• Decision Date: 15 November 2017
• Docket Number: Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-429,Appellate Case No. 2015-000995
• Parties: The State, Respondent, v. Albert Edward Siders, Appellant.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent, v. Albert Edward Siders, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000995

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-429

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Submitted October 1, 2017

November 15, 2017

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.

Appeal From Colleton County

Thomas W. Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

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

Page 2

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...