Stewart v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: February 16, 2011
• Docket: 2011-UP-064
• Status: Unpublished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 Court of Appeals

Lemmie D. Stewart, Appellant,

v.

The State of South Carolina, Respondent.

---

Appeal From Spartanburg County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-064
Submitted February 1, 2011 – Filed February 16, 2011   

---

AFFIRMED

---

Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Michelle Parsons Kelley, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Lemmie D. Stewart appeals the circuit court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing he is entitled to a new trial as a matter of law because the destruction of the trial record precluded meaningful review.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 17-27-20(b) (2003) ("[The Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act (the Act)] comprehends and takes the place of all other common law, statutory or other remedies heretofore available for challenging the validity of the conviction or sentence."); Simpson v. State, 329 S.C. 43, 46, 495 S.E.2d 429, 431 (1998) ("[A] matter which is cognizable under the Act may not be raised by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the circuit court or other lower courts."); Gibson v. State, 329 S.C. 37, 42, 495 S.E.2d 426, 428 (1998) ("[A] petitioner must allege sufficient facts to show why other remedies, such as [post-conviction relief], are unavailable or inadequate.").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

---

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