Hampton v. State of South Carolina

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

Christopher L. Hampton, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2017-002374

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Larry B. Hyman, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-095
Submitted February 1, 2021 – Filed March 24, 2021

APPPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter and Christopher L.
Hampton, pro se, both of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Megan
Harrigan Jameson, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: On November 5, 2007, Judge Roger L. Couch issued an order on
Petitioner's first application for post-conviction relief (PCR). Judge Couch denied
Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claims and granted Petitioner's request
for a belated direct appeal. No notice of appeal was filed. Petitioner now seeks a
writ of certiorari from Judge Larry B. Hyman's October 16, 2017 order, which
granted Petitioner a belated review of Judge Couch's order pursuant to Austin v.
State, 305 S.C. 453, 409 S.E.2d 395 (1991). Based on the vote of the panel, the
court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari from Judge Hyman's order,
dispenses with further briefing, and proceeds with an Austin review of Judge
Couch's order.

After Austin review, the petition for a writ of certiorari as to the ineffective
assistance of counsel claim is denied. However, because there is sufficient
evidence to support Judge Couch's finding that Petitioner did not knowingly and
intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari on the belated
direct appeal question 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 consideration of Petitioner's pro se briefs and review pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Petitioner's direct appeal is dismissed. Counsel's
motion to be relieved is granted.1

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HUFF, THOMAS, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

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