Dimas 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

Francisco
Dimas, Petitioner,

v.

State
of South Carolina, Respondent.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal from Spartanburg County

J. Derham Cole, Trial Judge

Doyet A. Early, III, Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-098

Submitted February 2, 2009 – Filed February 24, 2009

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate
Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, for Petitioner.

Attorney
General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney John W. McIntosh, Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Prentiss
Counts, 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 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).

After
a thorough review of the record and counsel's 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] Petitioner's appeal and grant counsel's motion to be
relieved.

APPEAL
DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J.,
PIEPER and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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