Ochoa-Tavera v. 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

Antonio Ochoa-Tavera, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2018-001115

Appeal From Greenville County
Daniel D. Hall, Trial Judge
J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-374
Submitted September 1, 2021 – Filed November 3, 2021

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for
Petitioner.

Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M.
Blitch, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent.

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

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 as to Petitioner's belated appeal PCR 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).

On direct appeal, Petitioner argues the trial court erred by admitting evidence
seized by law enforcement without a search warrant. After 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.

APPEAL DISMISSED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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