Ramantanin v. State

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Ramantanin v. State

DecidedJuly 17, 2013

Docket2013-UP-321

StatusUnpublished

This text of Ramantanin v. State (Ramantanin 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

Ramantanin v. State, (S.C. Ct. App. 2013).

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

George Ramantanin, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2010-159526

Appeal From Spartanburg County Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-321 Submitted June 1, 2013 – Filed July 17, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Suzanne Hollifield White, all 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 judge's finding that Petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari 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 otherwise deny the petition for writ of certiorari.

Petitioner appeals his conviction of distribution of cocaine, second offense, arguing the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of simple possession of cocaine. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brown, 362 S.C. 258, 262, 607 S.E.2d 93, 95 (Ct. App. 2004) ("To warrant reversal, a trial [court]'s refusal to give a requested jury charge must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant."); State v. Gosnell, 341 S.C. 627, 635, 535 S.E.2d 453, 458 (Ct. App. 2000) (concluding the trial court should refuse to charge a lesser included offense if there is no evidence that the defendant committed the lesser included offense).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, 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

George Ramantanin, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2010-159526

Appeal From Spartanburg County Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-321 Submitted June 1, 2013 – Filed July 17, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Suzanne Hollifield White, all 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 judge's finding that Petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari 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 otherwise deny the petition for writ of certiorari.

Petitioner appeals his conviction of distribution of cocaine, second offense, arguing the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of simple possession of cocaine. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brown, 362 S.C. 258, 262, 607 S.E.2d 93, 95 (Ct. App. 2004) ("To warrant reversal, a trial [court]'s refusal to give a requested jury charge must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant."); State v. Gosnell, 341 S.C. 627, 635, 535 S.E.2d 453, 458 (Ct. App. 2000) (concluding the trial court should refuse to charge a lesser included offense if there is no evidence that the defendant committed the lesser included offense).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ramantanin v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramantanin-v-state-scctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack