Perez v. State

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

Elkin Perez, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212301

Appeal From Greenville County
G. Edward Wellmaker, Circuit Court Judge
D. Garrison Hill, Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-238
Submitted May 1, 2014 – Filed June 25, 2014

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of
Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCroy Wilson and Assistant
Deputy 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 a writ of certiorari.

Petitioner asserts the trial court erred in allowing the jury to hear testimony about
prior warrants against him and other testimony about the police officers' familiarity
with Petitioner. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authority: State v. Carlson, 363 S.C. 586, 595, 611 S.E.2d 283, 287 (Ct. App.
2005) ("A contemporaneous objection is required to preserve issues for direct
appellate review.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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