Loftin v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Loftin v. State

296 S.E.2d 533, 278 S.C. 376, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 440

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedOctober 19, 1982

Docket21800

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 296 S.E.2d 533 (Loftin 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

Loftin v. State, 296 S.E.2d 533, 278 S.C. 376, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 440 (S.C. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Appellant was convicted of forgery and was sentenced to six years’ confinement, to run consecutively with prior sentences. He now appeals the denial, after a hearing, of his Post-Conviction Relief application.

Although the post-conviction judge denied appellant’s application, he found appellant had been denied his right to appeal. Accordingly, this case arises from the belated appeal procedures provided by White v. State, 263 S. C. 110, 208 S. E. (2d) 35 (1974) and McCray v. State, 271 S. C. 185, 246 S. E. (2d) 230 (1978).

Appellant alleges the trial court erred in sentencing him when it considered a prior conviction which was later reversed by this Court. See State v. Loftin, 276 S. C. 48, 275 S. E. (2d) 575 (1981). This issue is not a trial issue which falls under the review procedures of White and McCray, but is one which should have been raised during post-conviction proceedings. See S. C. Code Ann. § 17-27-20 (1976). Because appellant failed to do so, the issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Goolsby, 275 S. C. 110, 268 S. E. (2d) 31 (1980), cert. denied 449 U. S. 1037, 101 S. Ct. 616, 66 S. Ct. 500 (1980); Murphy v. Hagan, 275 S. C. 334, 271 S. E. (2d) 311 (1980).

The remaining issue submitted in this appeal is without merit and affirmed pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice of this Court.

Affirmed.

Harwell, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam:

Appellant was convicted of forgery and was sentenced to six years’ confinement, to run consecutively with prior sentences. He now appeals the denial, after a hearing, of his Post-Conviction Relief application.

Although the post-conviction judge denied appellant’s application, he found appellant had been denied his right to appeal. Accordingly, this case arises from the belated appeal procedures provided by White v. State, 263 S. C. 110, 208 S. E. (2d) 35 (1974) and McCray v. State, 271 S. C. 185, 246 S. E. (2d) 230 (1978).

Appellant alleges the trial court erred in sentencing him when it considered a prior conviction which was later reversed by this Court. See State v. Loftin, 276 S. C. 48, 275 S. E. (2d) 575 (1981). This issue is not a trial issue which falls under the review procedures of White and McCray, but is one which should have been raised during post-conviction proceedings. See S. C. Code Ann. § 17-27-20 (1976). Because appellant failed to do so, the issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Goolsby, 275 S. C. 110, 268 S. E. (2d) 31 (1980), cert. denied 449 U. S. 1037, 101 S. Ct. 616, 66 S. Ct. 500 (1980); Murphy v. Hagan, 275 S. C. 334, 271 S. E. (2d) 311 (1980).

The remaining issue submitted in this appeal is without merit and affirmed pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice of this Court.

Affirmed.

Harwell, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 S.E.2d 533, 278 S.C. 376, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loftin-v-state-sc-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack