Lindsey v. State

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Lindsey v. State

DecidedDecember 17, 2014

Docket2014-UP-461

StatusUnpublished

This text of Lindsey v. State (Lindsey 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

Lindsey v. State, (S.C. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

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 Court of Appeals

Jamal Lindsey, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212079

Appeal From Saluda County William P. Keesley, Post-Conviction Relief Judge R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Plea Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-461 Submitted November 1, 2014 – Filed December 17, 2014

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCroy Wilson and Assistant Attorney General John Walter Whitmire, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR). Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR court's finding that Petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari on Petitioner's Question One 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). We otherwise deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Petitioner asserts the plea court erred in accepting his guilty plea without requiring an admission of guilt. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108, 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) ("Absent timely objection at a plea proceeding, the unknowing and involuntary nature of a guilty plea can only be attacked through the more appropriate channel of [PCR]."); In re Antonio H., 324 S.C. 120, 122, 477 S.E.2d 713, 714 (1996) (finding an issue was procedurally barred when it "was not raised at the time of the plea, nor was it raised to the [court] at the dispositional hearing").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and McDONALD, 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

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 Court of Appeals

Jamal Lindsey, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212079

Appeal From Saluda County William P. Keesley, Post-Conviction Relief Judge R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Plea Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-461 Submitted November 1, 2014 – Filed December 17, 2014

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCroy Wilson and Assistant Attorney General John Walter Whitmire, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR). Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR court's finding that Petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari on Petitioner's Question One 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). We otherwise deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Petitioner asserts the plea court erred in accepting his guilty plea without requiring an admission of guilt. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108, 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) ("Absent timely objection at a plea proceeding, the unknowing and involuntary nature of a guilty plea can only be attacked through the more appropriate channel of [PCR]."); In re Antonio H., 324 S.C. 120, 122, 477 S.E.2d 713, 714 (1996) (finding an issue was procedurally barred when it "was not raised at the time of the plea, nor was it raised to the [court] at the dispositional hearing").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lindsey v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindsey-v-state-scctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack