Mungin 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

Darryl Jerrard Mungin, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2018-000441

Appeal From Charleston County
Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-248
Submitted June 1, 2021 – Filed June 30, 2021

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Taylor Davis Gilliam, of Columbia,
for Petitioner.

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

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his
application for post-conviction relief (PCR).

We find evidence supports the PCR court's dismissal of Petitioner's claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel; accordingly, we deny certiorari on this issue. See
Speaks v. State, 377 S.C. 396, 399, 660 S.E.2d 512, 514 (2008) ("On appeal, the
PCR court's ruling should be upheld if it is supported by any evidence of probative
value in the record.").

Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR court's finding that
Petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we
grant certiorari on this issue 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 review of
Petitioner's direct appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
this appeal is dismissed. Counsel's motion to be relieved as counsel for the direct
appeal is granted.

APPEAL DISMISSED.1

KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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