Burris v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Burris v. State

293 S.E.2d 309, 278 S.C. 151, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 371

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 28, 1982

Docket21740

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 293 S.E.2d 309 (Burris v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burris v. State, 293 S.E.2d 309, 278 S.C. 151, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 371 (S.C. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief after a hearing.

Appellant’s only exception argued on appeal states simply that “the lower court erred in denying Appellant’s application for Post-Conviction Relief where the record indicates that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.” The exception would require the Court to review not only the entire record of the post-conviction hearing, but also a substantial portion of the record of appellant’s murder trial. The exception is too general for consideration on appeal. Rule 4, § 6, Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court; South Carolina Insurance Company v. Estrada, S. C. 287 S E. (2d) 475 (1982); State v. Rouse, 262 S. C. 581, 206 S. E. (2d) 873 (1974).

Despite the inadequacy of appellant’s exception, we have considered the merits of his argument and find that the lower court committed no error.

The appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 4, §6.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief after a hearing.

Appellant’s only exception argued on appeal states simply that “the lower court erred in denying Appellant’s application for Post-Conviction Relief where the record indicates that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.” The exception would require the Court to review not only the entire record of the post-conviction hearing, but also a substantial portion of the record of appellant’s murder trial. The exception is too general for consideration on appeal. Rule 4, § 6, Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court; South Carolina Insurance Company v. Estrada, S. C. 287 S E. (2d) 475 (1982); State v. Rouse, 262 S. C. 581, 206 S. E. (2d) 873 (1974).

Despite the inadequacy of appellant’s exception, we have considered the merits of his argument and find that the lower court committed no error.

The appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 4, §6.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 S.E.2d 309, 278 S.C. 151, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burris-v-state-sc-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack