Allen 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

Travis L.
Allen, Petitioner

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent

Appeal From Greenville County

John C. Few, Plea Judge

 D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-359

Submitted June 29, 2007 – Filed August 8,
2007   

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Attorney Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant
Attorney General Karen Ratigan, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the partial
grant and partial denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR).[1]

Because there is
sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge’s finding that petitioner did not
knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant
certiorari on petitioner’s Question I 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). 

We
find no merit to Allen’s argument that the plea judge failed to advise Allen of
his right to confront accusers.  The plea judge specifically informed Allen
that by pleading guilty, he was giving up his right “to confront witnesses
called by the State against [him].”  Accordingly, Allen’s conviction for murder
is

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and
HUFF and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.

[1]  Allen argues his plea was not voluntarily made.  The
PCR judge rejected this argument finding Allen’s testimony was not credible. 
Furthermore, the record from the guilty plea establishes that Allen entered a
free, voluntary, and knowing plea.  Because there is evidence in the record to
support the PCR judge’s decision, we deny certiorari on Allen’s allegation his
plea was involuntarily made.  Caprood v. State, 338 S.C. 103, 109-10,
525 S.E.2d 514, 517 (2000) (explaining that the existence of any evidence is
sufficient to uphold the PCR judge’s ruling).