CourtListener 10138780•McFarland v. State
Gesamter Gesetzestext
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Michael Kevin McFarland, Petitioner
v.
State of South Carolina, Respondent
Appeal From Cherokee County
J. Derham Cole, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-152
Submitted March 1, 2006 Filed March 13, 2006
APPEAL DISMISSED
Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner.
Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott and Assistant Attorney General Molly R. Crum, Office of the Attorney General, 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 judges 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).
After a thorough review of the record and counsels brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we dismiss[1] McFarlands appeal and grant counsels motion to be relieved.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
BEATTY, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.