Martin v. State

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Martin v. State

DecidedJanuary 5, 2006

Docket2006-UP-006

StatusUnpublished

This text of Martin v. State (Martin 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

Martin v. State, (S.C. Ct. App. 2006).

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Henry W. Martin, Jr., Appellant,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County
Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-006
Submitted January 3, 2006 Filed January 5, 2006

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliot, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Henry Martin appeals the trial courts dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He argues the trial court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he should be released from custody for the States alleged violations of his due process rights under the South Carolina and United States Constitutions. The trial court correctly found Martins petition failed to allege sufficient facts showing why other remedies, such as Post Conviction Relief (PCR), were unavailable. See Keeler v. Mauney, 330 S.C. 568, 571, 500 S.E.2d 123, 124 (Ct. App. 1998) (A person is procedurally barred from petitioning the circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus where the matter alleged is one which could have been raised in a PCR application.). Accordingly, after a thorough review of the record and counsels brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we dismiss Martins appeal and grant counsels motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.[1]

GOOLSBY, ANDERSON, and SHORT, 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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Henry W. Martin, Jr., Appellant,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County
Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-006
Submitted January 3, 2006 Filed January 5, 2006

APPEAL DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliot, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Henry Martin appeals the trial courts dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He argues the trial court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he should be released from custody for the States alleged violations of his due process rights under the South Carolina and United States Constitutions. The trial court correctly found Martins petition failed to allege sufficient facts showing why other remedies, such as Post Conviction Relief (PCR), were unavailable. See Keeler v. Mauney, 330 S.C. 568, 571, 500 S.E.2d 123, 124 (Ct. App. 1998) (A person is procedurally barred from petitioning the circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus where the matter alleged is one which could have been raised in a PCR application.). Accordingly, after a thorough review of the record and counsels brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we dismiss Martins appeal and grant counsels motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.[1]

GOOLSBY, ANDERSON, and SHORT, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Martin v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-state-scctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack