Strope v. State

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Strope v. State

DecidedDecember 11, 2013

Docket2013-UP-457

StatusUnpublished

This text of Strope v. State (Strope 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

Strope 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

Christopher Edward Strope, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2011-195228

Appeal From Greenville County G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-457 Submitted October 1, 2013 – Filed December 11, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Breen Richard Stevens and Appellate Defender Benjamin John Tripp, both of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Karen Christine Ratigan, 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 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 convictions of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC) with a minor and second-degree CSC with a minor, arguing the trial court erred in allowing the State to ask a leading question to the minor victim. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 99, 544 S.E.2d 30, 37 (2001) ("A leading question is one which suggests to the witness the desired answer . . . . In order to require reversal, [the] appellant must show an abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice." (quoting State v. Tyner, 273 S.C. 646, 653, 258 S.E.2d 559, 563 (1979))).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, 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

Christopher Edward Strope, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2011-195228

Appeal From Greenville County G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-457 Submitted October 1, 2013 – Filed December 11, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Breen Richard Stevens and Appellate Defender Benjamin John Tripp, both of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Karen Christine Ratigan, 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 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 convictions of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC) with a minor and second-degree CSC with a minor, arguing the trial court erred in allowing the State to ask a leading question to the minor victim. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 99, 544 S.E.2d 30, 37 (2001) ("A leading question is one which suggests to the witness the desired answer . . . . In order to require reversal, [the] appellant must show an abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice." (quoting State v. Tyner, 273 S.C. 646, 653, 258 S.E.2d 559, 563 (1979))).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

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

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack