Deleston v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Deleston v. State

DecidedDecember 19, 2005

Docket2005-MO-060

StatusUnpublished

This text of Deleston v. State (Deleston 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

Deleston v. State, (S.C. 2005).

Pincite

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

Dwayne C. Deleston, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent-Petitioner.

Appeal From Charleston County
R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Post-Conviction Relief Judge
A. Victor Rawl, Plea Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2005-MO-060
Submitted November 29, 2005 - Filed December 19, 2005

REVERSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner-Respondent.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Senior Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter III, of Columbia, for Respondent-Petitioner.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner-respondent (Deleston) filed an application for post-conviction relief (PCR) in 2001 on his 1997 possession of cocaine conviction. The PCR judge granted the States motion to dismiss Delestons allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel as barred by the statute of limitations. However, the judge granted Deleston a belated review of his direct appeal issues pursuant to White v. State, 363 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974), finding that laches did not bar that allegation. Both Deleston and the State seek writs of certiorari.

The evidence does not support the PCR judges finding that Deleston was entitled to a belated review of his direct appeal issues. In addition, the judge erred in failing to find that Delestons application was barred by laches. Accordingly, we grant the petitions for writs of certiorari, dispense with further briefing, and reverse the order of the PCR judge. Rogers v. State, 317 S.C. 392, 453 S.E.2d 892 (1995) (PCR judges findings will not be upheld if there is no probative evidence to support them).

REVERSED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur. WALLER, J., not participating.

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

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

Dwayne C. Deleston, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent-Petitioner.

Appeal From Charleston County
R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Post-Conviction Relief Judge
A. Victor Rawl, Plea Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2005-MO-060
Submitted November 29, 2005 - Filed December 19, 2005

REVERSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner-Respondent.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Senior Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter III, of Columbia, for Respondent-Petitioner.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner-respondent (Deleston) filed an application for post-conviction relief (PCR) in 2001 on his 1997 possession of cocaine conviction. The PCR judge granted the States motion to dismiss Delestons allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel as barred by the statute of limitations. However, the judge granted Deleston a belated review of his direct appeal issues pursuant to White v. State, 363 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974), finding that laches did not bar that allegation. Both Deleston and the State seek writs of certiorari.

The evidence does not support the PCR judges finding that Deleston was entitled to a belated review of his direct appeal issues. In addition, the judge erred in failing to find that Delestons application was barred by laches. Accordingly, we grant the petitions for writs of certiorari, dispense with further briefing, and reverse the order of the PCR judge. Rogers v. State, 317 S.C. 392, 453 S.E.2d 892 (1995) (PCR judges findings will not be upheld if there is no probative evidence to support them).

REVERSED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur. WALLER, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Deleston v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deleston-v-state-sc-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack