Joe v. State

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedAugust 24, 2009
Docket2009-MO-045
StatusUnpublished

This text of Joe v. State (Joe 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
Joe v. State, (S.C. 2009).

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 Supreme Court

Mickeal Larron Joe, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.


ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI


Appeal From Lancaster County
G. Edward Welmaker, Trial Judge
 Brooks P. Goldsmith, Post-Conviction Relief Judge


Memorandum Opinion No. 2009-MO-045
Submitted July 22, 2009 – Filed August 24, 2009


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Michelle J. Parsons, all of Columbia, for Respondent.


PER CURIAM:  Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR).

We deny the petition on Petitioner’s Question II.  Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge’s finding that petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari on Petitioner’s Question I, dispense with further briefing, and proceed with a review of the direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986).

Petitioner’s conviction and sentence are affirmed pursuant to pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Evins, 373 S.C. 404, 645 S.E.2d 904 (2007); State v. Jackson, 364 S.C. 329, 613 S.E.2d 374 (2005); State v. 192 Coin-Operated Video Game Machines, 338 S.C. 176, 525 S.E.2d 872 (2000).

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., WALLER, PLEICONES, BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State v. Evins
645 S.E.2d 904 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2007)
State v. 192 Coin-Operated Video Game MacHines
525 S.E.2d 872 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2000)
State v. Jackson
613 S.E.2d 374 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2005)
Davis v. State
342 S.E.2d 60 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Joe v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joe-v-state-sc-2009.