Hughes v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Hughes v. State

189 S.E.2d 831, 258 S.C. 578, 1972 S.C. LEXIS 378

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 7, 1972

Docket19451

StatusPublished

This text of 189 S.E.2d 831 (Hughes 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

Hughes v. State, 189 S.E.2d 831, 258 S.C. 578, 1972 S.C. LEXIS 378 (S.C. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Appellant was convicted of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature at the November 1970 term of General Sessions Court for Jasper County, and is currently serving the resultant sentence. He presently appeals from the denial of his successive applications for post-conviction relief. He was represented on his trial by retained counsel but is presently represented by appointed counsel.

His present counsel has advised the Court that he is convinced that the appeal is wholly frivolous and requested leave to withdraw. He has fully complied with the requirements of Anders v. State of California, 386 U. S. 738, 87 [579]*579S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. (2d) 493 (1967), including the service of his brief upon the appellant who has filed a responsive brief. With one exception, appellant’s responsive brief is substantially a rehash of contentions made to the lower court and found to be without merit. He now expresses dissatisfaction with his present appointed counsel, for failure to discover or propose any meritorious ground of appeal, and he asks this Court to appoint for him other counsel, who presumably, or at least hopefully, might discover some worthy basis of appeal.

After a careful examination of the entire record, including the briefs, 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 was convicted of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature at the November 1970 term of General Sessions Court for Jasper County, and is currently serving the resultant sentence. He presently appeals from the denial of his successive applications for post-conviction relief. He was represented on his trial by retained counsel but is presently represented by appointed counsel.

His present counsel has advised the Court that he is convinced that the appeal is wholly frivolous and requested leave to withdraw. He has fully complied with the requirements of Anders v. State of California, 386 U. S. 738, 87 [579]*579S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. (2d) 493 (1967), including the service of his brief upon the appellant who has filed a responsive brief. With one exception, appellant’s responsive brief is substantially a rehash of contentions made to the lower court and found to be without merit. He now expresses dissatisfaction with his present appointed counsel, for failure to discover or propose any meritorious ground of appeal, and he asks this Court to appoint for him other counsel, who presumably, or at least hopefully, might discover some worthy basis of appeal.

After a careful examination of the entire record, including the briefs, 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)

189 S.E.2d 831, 258 S.C. 578, 1972 S.C. LEXIS 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-state-sc-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack