Freddie Edwards 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

Freddie Edwards, Appellant,

v.

The State of South
Carolina, Respondent.

Appeal From Greenwood County

Cordell M. Maddox, Circuit Court Judge

William P. Keesley, PCR Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-173

Submitted February 1, 2010 - Filed March
1, 2010   

REVERSED AND REMANDED

C. Rauch Wise, of Greenwood, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Ashley A. McMahan, all of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Freddie Edwards seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial
of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR).  Because evidence supports the PCR court's
finding that Edwards 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), and White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974).

Edwards appeals
the trial court's determination he was not entitled to an involuntary
manslaughter charge.  We find the evidence presented at trial warranted the
requested involuntary manslaughter charge.  Accordingly, we reverse[1] and remand Edwards's case for a new
trial pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Burriss, 334 S.C. 256, 262, 513
S.E.2d 104, 108 (1999) ("[T]he law to be charged is determined from
the evidence presented at trial . . . ."); Id. ("The trial
court commits reversible error if it fails to give a requested charge on an
issue raised by the evidence."); State v. Mekler, 379 S.C. 12, 17,
664 S.E.2d 477, 479 (2008) (holding the defendant in a murder trial was
entitled to an involuntary manslaughter charge because evidence was presented
to support the charge).  

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

PIEPER and GEATHERS,
JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

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