Luckett v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Luckett v. State

462 S.E.2d 858, 319 S.C. 555, 1995 S.C. LEXIS 158

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedSeptember 18, 1995

Docket24313

StatusPublished

This text of 462 S.E.2d 858 (Luckett 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

Luckett v. State, 462 S.E.2d 858, 319 S.C. 555, 1995 S.C. LEXIS 158 (S.C. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR).

Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge’s finding that petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari on petitioner’s Question 1 and proceed with a review of the direct appeal issues pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E. (2d) 60 (1986). We deny certiorari as to petitioner’s Question 2.

The direct appeal issues are affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Issue 1: State v. Hudgins, 460 S.E. (2d) 388 (S.C. Sup. Ct. 1995) (Davis Adv. Sh. No. 17 at 43) (an issue may not be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review); State v. Stewart, 275 S.C. 447, 272 S.E. (2d) 628 (1989); State v. Thompson, 276 S.C. 616, 281 S.E. (2d) 216 (1981); Issue 2: United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378, 112 S.Ct. 1377, 118 L.Ed. (2d) 25 (1992); State v. Hudgins, supra.

Burnett, AJ., not participating.

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

Per Curiam:

Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR).

Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge’s finding that petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari on petitioner’s Question 1 and proceed with a review of the direct appeal issues pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E. (2d) 60 (1986). We deny certiorari as to petitioner’s Question 2.

The direct appeal issues are affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Issue 1: State v. Hudgins, 460 S.E. (2d) 388 (S.C. Sup. Ct. 1995) (Davis Adv. Sh. No. 17 at 43) (an issue may not be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review); State v. Stewart, 275 S.C. 447, 272 S.E. (2d) 628 (1989); State v. Thompson, 276 S.C. 616, 281 S.E. (2d) 216 (1981); Issue 2: United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378, 112 S.Ct. 1377, 118 L.Ed. (2d) 25 (1992); State v. Hudgins, supra.

Burnett, AJ., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 S.E.2d 858, 319 S.C. 555, 1995 S.C. LEXIS 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luckett-v-state-sc-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack