Bailey v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Decided: January 22, 2007
• Docket: 2007-MO-004
• Status: Unpublished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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

Michael F. Bailey, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

---

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

---

Appeal From Anderson County
James W. Johnson, Trial Judge
 Alexander S. Macaulay, Post-Conviction Relief Judge

---

Memorandum Opinion No. 2007-MO-004
Submitted January 17, 2007 – Filed January 22, 2007

---

AFFIRMED

---

J. Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christopher L. Newton, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

---

PER CURIAM:  Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR).

Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge’s finding that petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari, dispense with further briefing, and proceed with a review of the direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986).

The direct appeal issue is affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Taylor, 333 S.C. 159, 508 S.E.2d 870 (1998) (a general objection is insufficient to preserve an issue for appellate review); State v. Bailey, 253 S.C. 304, 170 S.E.2d 376 (1969) (trial judge commits no error in overruling a general objection).

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.