Antonio Gordon 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

Antonio Gordon, Appellant,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001004

Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge
Daniel Dewitt Hall, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-385
Submitted September 1, 2017 – Filed October 18, 2017

AFFIRMED

Antonio Gordon, pro se.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Justin James Hunter, both of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Rule 60(b), SCRCP ("On motion and upon such terms as are just, the
court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order,
or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not
have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)[, SCRCP];
(3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a
prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it
is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application."); id.
(providing a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) "shall be made within a reasonable
time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgment,
order or proceeding was entered or taken" (emphasis added)); Austin v. State, 305
S.C. 453, 454, 409 S.E.2d 395, 396 (1991) (recognizing "a prisoner's right to the
assistance of appellate counsel in seeking review of the denial of [post-conviction
relief]" and allowing for a successive PCR application when the applicant has been
denied complete access to the appellate process).

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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