Barron 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

Lawrence
Barron, Appellant,

v.

State of South
Carolina, Respondent.

Appeal From Charleston County

Daniel F. Pieper, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-239

Submitted April 1, 2010 – Filed April 14,
2010

Affirmed

Lawrence Barron, pro se, 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 Colleen E. Dixon, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Lawrence Barron appeals the post-conviction relief
(PCR) court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing a
writ of habeas corpus is not subject to the procedural requirements of a PCR
application.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the
following authority: Keeler v. Mauney, 330 S.C. 568, 571, 500 S.E.2d 123, 124 (Ct.
App. 1998) ("A person is procedurally barred from petitioning the circuit
court for a writ of habeas corpus where the matter alleged is one which could
have been raised in a PCR application.").

Affirmed.

HUFF,
THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. 

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