Barron v. State
This text of Barron v. State (Barron v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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
Lawrence Barron, Appellant,
v.
State of South Carolina, Respondent.
Appeal From Charleston County
Daniel F. Pieper, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-239
Submitted April 1, 2010 Filed April 14,
2010
Affirmed
Lawrence Barron, pro se, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Colleen E. Dixon, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Lawrence Barron appeals the post-conviction relief (PCR) court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing a writ of habeas corpus is not subject to the procedural requirements of a PCR application. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Keeler v. Mauney, 330 S.C. 568, 571, 500 S.E.2d 123, 124 (Ct. App. 1998) ("A person is procedurally barred from petitioning the circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus where the matter alleged is one which could have been raised in a PCR application.").
Affirmed.
HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.
[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Barron v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barron-v-state-scctapp-2010.