Cummings v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Cummings v. State

194 S.E.2d 649, 260 S.C. 146, 1973 S.C. LEXIS 324

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedFebruary 26, 1973

Docket19573

StatusPublished

This text of 194 S.E.2d 649 (Cummings 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

Cummings v. State, 194 S.E.2d 649, 260 S.C. 146, 1973 S.C. LEXIS 324 (S.C. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Appellant pled guilty to, a charge of manslaughter at the December 1969 term of General Sessions Court for Charleston County and is currently serving the resulting sentence. He presently appeals from the denial of his successive applications for post-conviction relief. He was represented on his trial by retained counsel and the record reflects that such representation was quite full and able. His present counsel is serving by appointment and has advised the Court that he is convinced that the appeal is wholly frivolous and requested leave to withdraw. He was fully complied with the requirements of Anders v. State of California, 386 U. S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. (2d) 493 (1967), including the service of his brief upop the appellant who has filed no responsive brief.

After a careful examination of the entire record and the brief of counsel, we are convinced that the appeal is manifestly without merit and wholly frivolous. Accordingly, the request of counsel for leave to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

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

Per Curiam:

Appellant pled guilty to, a charge of manslaughter at the December 1969 term of General Sessions Court for Charleston County and is currently serving the resulting sentence. He presently appeals from the denial of his successive applications for post-conviction relief. He was represented on his trial by retained counsel and the record reflects that such representation was quite full and able. His present counsel is serving by appointment and has advised the Court that he is convinced that the appeal is wholly frivolous and requested leave to withdraw. He was fully complied with the requirements of Anders v. State of California, 386 U. S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. (2d) 493 (1967), including the service of his brief upop the appellant who has filed no responsive brief.

After a careful examination of the entire record and the brief of counsel, we are convinced that the appeal is manifestly without merit and wholly frivolous. Accordingly, the request of counsel for leave to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 S.E.2d 649, 260 S.C. 146, 1973 S.C. LEXIS 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cummings-v-state-sc-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack