Wingate 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
239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Kenneth Marcell
Wingate, Appellant,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appeal From Darlington County

 J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-136

Submitted March 3, 2008 – Filed March 4,
2008

Kenneth Marcell Wingate, of Bennettsville, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant
Attorney General Karen C. Ratigan, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Kenneth Marcell Wingate appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of
habeas corpus.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities: 1) State v. Gentry,
363 S.C. 93, 610 S.E.2d 494 (2005) (explaining that challenging the sufficiency
of an indictment does not raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction); 2) Al-Shabazz
v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 365, 527 S.E.2d 742, 748 (2000) (holding any matter
cognizable under the PCR Act must be raised in a PCR action and may not be
raised by a petition for writ of habeas corpus); & 3) Keeler v. Mauney,
330 S.C. 568, 571, 500 S.E.2d 123, 124 (Ct. App. 1998) (holding if a petitioner
is procedurally barred, his only means of obtaining State habeas corpus relief
is to file a petition in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court). 
Accordingly, the order on appeal is

AFFIRMED.[1]

ANDERSON, SHORT, and
THOMAS JJ., concur.

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