Richardson v. State of SC

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

Anthony Derone Richardson, Appellant,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2017-002385

Appeal From Union County
John C. Hayes, III, Plea Judge
Letitia H. Verdin, PCR Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-011
Submitted October 1, 2020 – Filed January 20, 2021

APPEAL DISMISSED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Brianna L. Schill, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his
application for post-conviction relief (PCR). 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 as to Petitioner's
PCR issue and proceed with a review of his direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v.
State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986). We deny certiorari as to Petitioner's
pro se issue.

On direct appeal, Petitioner argues the plea court erred in accepting his guilty pleas
as knowingly and voluntarily entered because sentencing consequences were not
explained to him during the plea proceeding. However, because no
contemporaneous objection was made, this issue is unpreserved for appellate
review. See McCray v. State, 271 S.C. 185, 187-88, 246 S.E.2d 230, 231 (1978)
("A defendant can only raise and argue on the 'belated appeal' those issues which
could have been raised and argued on a timely direct appeal."); State v. Carlson,
363 S.C. 586, 595, 611 S.E.2d 283, 287 (Ct. App. 2005) ("A contemporaneous
objection is required to preserve issues for direct appellate review."); State v.
McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108, 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) ("Absent timely
objection at a plea proceeding, the unknowing and involuntary nature of a guilty
plea can only be attacked through the more appropriate channel of [PCR]."); In re
Antonio H., 324 S.C. 120, 122, 477 S.E.2d 713, 714 (1996) ("The proper avenue in
which to challenge a guilty plea which is not objected to at the time of its entry is
through [PCR]."). Accordingly, after review pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), we dismiss Petitioner's direct appeal. Counsel's motion to be
relieved is granted.

APPEAL DISMISSED.1

KONDUROS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

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