Pelzer v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Decided: July 29, 2015
• Docket: 2015-MO-045
• Status: Unpublished

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 Supreme Court

Willie Pelzer, III, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000731 Lower Court Case No. 2010-CP-09-00189

Appeal From Calhoun County The Honorable Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2015-MO-045 Submitted July 2, 2015 – Filed July 29, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Laura Ruth Baer, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant Attorney General Megan Harrigan Jameson, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR). Because petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we granted certiorari on August 6, 2014 and now proceed with a review of the direct appeal issues pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986).

Petitioner's conviction and sentence are affirmed. See State v. Shuler, 344 S.C. 604, 545 S.E.2d 805(2001) (stating appellate courts give the trial judge's findings from a Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) hearing "great deference on appeal, reviewing the trial judge's ruling with a clearly erroneous standard"); State v. Stanko, 402 S.C. 252, 741 S.E.2d 708 (2013) ("When a trial judge bases the denial of a motion for a change of venue because of pre-trial publicity upon an adequate voir dire examination of the jurors, his decision will not be disturbed absent extraordinary circumstances."); State v. Wright, 304 S.C. 529, 405 S.E.2d 825 (1991) ("The grant or denial of a motion for continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed absent an abuse, resulting in prejudice to the defendant."); and State v. Todd, 290 S.C. 212, 349 S.E.2d 339 (1986) ("The law to be charged is determined from the evidence presented at trial.").

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, and HEARN, JJ., concur. KITTREDGE, J., not participating.