James 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

Robert Anthony
James, Petitioner,

v.

State of South
Carolina, Respondent.

Appeal From Richland County

 Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-480

Heard October 19, 2011 – Filed October 27,
2011   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth
Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Brian T. Petrano, all of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Robert Anthony James appeals
the post-conviction relief (PCR) court's order denying his PCR application.  He
contends trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue for dismissal of
his indictments on the ground the State violated his Sixth Amendment right to a
speedy trial.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1),
SCACR, and the following authorities: Stepney v. State, 278 S.C. 47, 48,
292 S.E.2d 41, 41 (1982) ("Alleged errors which
may be reviewed on direct appeal may not be asserted for the first time in
post-conviction proceedings."); Porter v. State, 368 S.C. 378, 383, 629
S.E.2d 353, 356 (2006) ("In order to establish a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, a PCR applicant must prove: (1) that counsel failed to
render reasonably effective assistance under prevailing professional norms; and
(2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the applicant's case."); Smith
v. State, 309 S.C. 413, 415, 424 S.E.2d 480, 481 (1992) (holding a petitioner
must prove there is "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different")
(quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984))).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.