Lane v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Decided: May 30, 2018
• Docket: 2018-MO-023
• Status: Unpublished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 Supreme Court

Amy Renee Lane, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-002403 Lower Court Case No. 2015-CP-38-00708

Appeal From Orangeburg County The Honorable Edgar W. Dickson, Plea Judge The Honorable Benjamin H. Culbertson, Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2018-MO-023 Submitted May 2, 2018 – Filed May 30, 2018

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Ruston Wesley Neely, both of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of her application for post-conviction relief (PCR). Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge's finding that petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive her right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari, 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 Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-330(A) (2015) (a person convicted of armed robbery must be imprisoned for a mandatory minimum term of not less than ten years); State v. Garner, 304 S.C. 220, 222, 403 S.E.2d 631, 632 (1991) (where no objection to sentencing was raised at trial, any alleged error in sentencing is not properly before the Supreme Court on appeal); State v. Jeffcoat, 279 S.C. 167, 171, 303 S.E.2d 855, 857 (1983) (the appellate court will not disturb a sentence within statutory limits absent a showing of prejudice); State v. Bolin, 209 S.C. 108, 111, 39 S.E.2d 197, 198 (1946) (the Supreme Court will not correct a sentence alleged to be excessive when it is within the limits prescribed by law unless partiality, prejudice, oppression, or corrupt motive is shown).

AFFIRMED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.