Johnson v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedOctober 9, 2008
Docket2008-UP-547
StatusUnpublished

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.

Bluebook
Johnson v. State, (S.C. Ct. App. 2008).

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

Allen Johnson, Appellant,

v.

The State, Respondent.


Appeal From Greenville County
 D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-547  
Submitted October 1, 2008 – Filed October 9, 2008


AFFIRMED


Allen Johnson, pro se, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Karen C. Ratigan, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Allen Johnson, Jr., 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 Ann. § 17-27-20(a)-(b)  (2003); 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.

Anderson, Williams, and Konduros, JJ., concur.


[1] 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

Keeler v. Mauney
500 S.E.2d 123 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1998)
State v. Gentry
610 S.E.2d 494 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2005)
Simpson v. State
495 S.E.2d 429 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Johnson v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-scctapp-2008.