Martin v. State

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Martin v. State

DecidedNovember 19, 2014

Docket2014-UP-403

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. 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

Andre Martin, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212088

Appeal From Anderson County J.C. Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-403 Submitted July 1, 2014 – Filed November 19, 2014

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory 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 affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: McCray v. State, 271 S.C. 185, 187-88, 246 S.E.2d 230, 231 (1978) (holding, in the context of a belated appeal under White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974), "a defendant can only raise and argue on the 'belated appeal' those issues which could have been raised and argued on a timely direct appeal"); id. at 188, 246 S.E.2d at 231 ("Accordingly, [this court's] review of any alleged trial errors is limited to those which would have been before the [c]ourt had a timely direct appeal been taken."); State v. Johnston, 333 S.C. 459, 462-64, 510 S.E.2d 423, 425 (1999) (stating, absent exceptional circumstances, "a challenge to sentencing must be raised at trial, or the issue will not be preserved for appellate review").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, 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

Andre Martin, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212088

Appeal From Anderson County J.C. Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-403 Submitted July 1, 2014 – Filed November 19, 2014

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory 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 affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: McCray v. State, 271 S.C. 185, 187-88, 246 S.E.2d 230, 231 (1978) (holding, in the context of a belated appeal under White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974), "a defendant can only raise and argue on the 'belated appeal' those issues which could have been raised and argued on a timely direct appeal"); id. at 188, 246 S.E.2d at 231 ("Accordingly, [this court's] review of any alleged trial errors is limited to those which would have been before the [c]ourt had a timely direct appeal been taken."); State v. Johnston, 333 S.C. 459, 462-64, 510 S.E.2d 423, 425 (1999) (stating, absent exceptional circumstances, "a challenge to sentencing must be raised at trial, or the issue will not be preserved for appellate review").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, and MCDONALD, 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-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack