Johnson v. State
This text of Johnson v. State (Johnson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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 Court of Appeals
Randy Johnson, Appellant,
v.
State of South Carolina, Respondent.
Appeal From Laurens County
Wyatt T. Saunders, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-391Submitted June 1, 2005 Filed June 14, 2005
AFFIRMED
Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott Assistant Attorney General Adrianne L. Turner, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Randy Johnson appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Johnson argues his petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be treated as an application for post-conviction relief so that he can pursue an appeal of his first PCR action under Austin v. State, 305 S.C. 453, 409 S.E.2d 395 (1991). We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities: Aice v. State, 305 S.C. 448, 409 S.E.2d 392 (1991) (holding successive applications are disfavored and the burden is on the applicant to establish that any new ground raised in a subsequent application could not have been raised in a previous application); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 587 S.E.2d 691 (2003) (holding in order to preserve an issue for appellate review it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge).
AFFIRMED. [2]
GOOLSBY, HUFF, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.
[1] Johnsons appellate counsel filed a brief along with a petition to be relieved as counsel. We grant counsels petition to be relieved.
[2] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Johnson v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-scctapp-2005.