Fishburne v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: November 23, 2009
• Docket: 2009-UP-549
• Status: Unpublished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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Shawn Fishburne, Appellant

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent

---

Appeal From Richland County
Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-549
Submitted November 2, 2009 – Filed November 23, 2009

---

AFFIRMED

---

Shawn Fishburne, 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 Brian  Petrano, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Shawn Fishburne appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code § 17-27-20(b) (2003) (explaining the  Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act (the Act) "comprehends and takes the place of all other common law, statutory or other remedies heretofore available for challenging the validity of the conviction or sentence," and provides the Act "shall be used exclusively in place of them."); State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 101, 610 S.E.2d 494, 499 (2005) (finding subject matter jurisdiction and the sufficiency of the indictment are two distinct concepts); Simpson v. State, 329 S.C. 43, 46, 495 S.E.2d 429, 431 (1998) (explaining habeas corpus is available only after the petitioner has exhausted all post-conviction remedies and habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or as a remedial procedure for the correction of errors for which a criminal defendant had an opportunity to avail himself); 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.

SHORT, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

---

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.