Harrell 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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Eddie W. Harrell, Appellant,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

__________

Appeal From Richland County

J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-101

Submitted February 2, 2009 – Filed
February 26, 2009   

AFFIRMED

Eddie W. Harrell, pro se, for Appellant. 

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant
Attorney General Brian T. Petrano, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Eddie
W. Harrell appeals the dismissal of his
petition for writ of habeas corpus.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C.
Code Ann. § 17-27-20(b)  (2003) (explaining the Uniform Post-Conviction
Procedure Act (the Act) "comprehends and takes the place of all other
common law, statutory or other remedies heretofore available for challenging
the validity of the conviction or sentence," and provides the Act "shall
be used exclusively in place of them."); Simpson v. State, 329 S.C.
43, 46, 495 S.E.2d 429, 431 (1998) (explaining habeas corpus is available only
after the petitioner has exhausted all post-conviction remedies and habeas
corpus cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or as a remedial procedure for
the correction of errors for which a criminal defendant had an opportunity to
avail himself); Gibson v. State, 329 S.C. 37, 42, 495 S.E.2d 426, 428
(1998) ("[P]etitioner must allege sufficient facts to show why other remedies,
such as PCR, are unavailable or inadequate."); 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.

HEARN, C.J., PIEPER and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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