Lorgio D. Morales v. State

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Lorgio D. Morales v. State

DecidedJanuary 4, 2023

Docket2019-000072

StatusUnpublished

This text of Lorgio D. Morales v. State (Lorgio D. Morales 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

Lorgio D. Morales v. State, (S.C. Ct. App. 2023).

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

Lorgio D. Morales, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2019-000072

Appeal From Greenville County Alex Kinlaw, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-007 Submitted October 1, 2022 – Filed January 4, 2023

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Joanna Katherine Delany, of Columbia, and Lorgio D. Morales, pro se, both for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Taylor Zane Smith, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: This court previously issued an order granting certiorari on the question of whether Petitioner was entitled to a belated direct appeal pursuant to White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974), and directing the parties to serve and file the appendix and briefs as provided by Rule 243(j), SCACR. Subsequently, Petitioner's appellate counsel filed a supplemental appendix and an Anders 1 brief that included a petition to be relieved as counsel, and Petitioner filed a pro se Anders brief. The State has not objected to any of these filings; therefore, this court (1) grants Petitioner a belated direct appeal of his conviction pursuant to White, (2) accepts the Anders brief filed by Petitioner's appellate counsel and the pro se Anders brief filed by Petitioner, (3) dispenses with further briefing, and (4) will proceed with a review of the direct appeal issues pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986).

After consideration of Petitioner's pro se brief and review pursuant to Anders, we dismiss Petitioner's direct appeal and grant counsel's motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED. 2

WILLIAMS, C.J., THOMAS, J., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 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

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

Lorgio D. Morales, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2019-000072

Appeal From Greenville County Alex Kinlaw, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-007 Submitted October 1, 2022 – Filed January 4, 2023

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Joanna Katherine Delany, of Columbia, and Lorgio D. Morales, pro se, both for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Taylor Zane Smith, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: This court previously issued an order granting certiorari on the question of whether Petitioner was entitled to a belated direct appeal pursuant to White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974), and directing the parties to serve and file the appendix and briefs as provided by Rule 243(j), SCACR. Subsequently, Petitioner's appellate counsel filed a supplemental appendix and an Anders 1 brief that included a petition to be relieved as counsel, and Petitioner filed a pro se Anders brief. The State has not objected to any of these filings; therefore, this court (1) grants Petitioner a belated direct appeal of his conviction pursuant to White, (2) accepts the Anders brief filed by Petitioner's appellate counsel and the pro se Anders brief filed by Petitioner, (3) dispenses with further briefing, and (4) will proceed with a review of the direct appeal issues pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986).

After consideration of Petitioner's pro se brief and review pursuant to Anders, we dismiss Petitioner's direct appeal and grant counsel's motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED. 2

WILLIAMS, C.J., THOMAS, J., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lorgio D. Morales v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lorgio-d-morales-v-state-scctapp-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack