Samuel Smiley 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
Samuel Smiley, Petitioner,
v.
State of South Carolina, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2025-000337
Appeal From Charleston County
Walton J. McLeod, IV, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-453
Submitted September 1, 2026 – Filed October 14, 2026
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Gary Howard Johnson, II, of
Columbia, for Petitioner.
Assistant Attorney General Danielle Dixon, of Columbia,
for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from an order of the circuit
court finding he was entitled to a belated review of his direct appeal issues
pursuant to White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974).
Because sufficient evidence supports the post-conviction relief (PCR) court's

finding that Petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a
direct appeal, we grant certiorari on Petitioner's PCR issue and proceed with a
review of the direct appeal issues pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342
S.E.2d 60 (1986).
On appeal, Petitioner argues the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that a
defendant could be found guilty of accessory before the fact if he agrees with
another person's criminal plan or urges the commission of the crime because the
instruction was (1) an unconstitutional comment on the facts and (2) an incorrect
statement of the law. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.
We hold these issues are not preserved for appellate review because Petitioner did
not object to the jury instruction and his requested instruction included the
language about which he now complains—an accessory before the fact includes
one who "advised and agreed, or urged" another to commit the offense. See State
v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003) ("In order for an issue
to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by
the trial [court]."); State v. Daniels, 401 S.C. 251, 255, 737 S.E.2d 473, 475 (2012)
("It is axiomatic that an objection to a jury charge may not be raised for the first
time on appeal."); State v. Dinkins, 435 S.C. 541, 553, 868 S.E.2d 181, 187 (Ct.
App. 2021) (holding that when a defendant requested a specific jury instruction,
"he waived his challenge to the propriety of the charge on appeal").
AFFIRMED.1
WILLIAMS, C.J., and MCDONALD and TURNER, JJ., concur.
1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.