Robert Jackson 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

Robert Jackson, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001497

Appeal From Florence County
William H. Seals, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-389
Submitted September 1, 2022 – Filed October 26, 2022

APPEAL DISMISSED

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

Assistant Attorney General D. Russell Barlow, II, of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from an order of the circuit
court denying his application for post-conviction relief (PCR) but finding he was
entitled to a belated review of his direct appeal issue pursuant to White v. State,
263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974).
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 on Petitioner's Question 1 and proceed with a review of the direct
appeal issue pursuant to the procedure set forth in Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342
S.E.2d 60 (1986). We deny certiorari on Petitioner's Question 2.

After careful review of Petitioner's brief and the record pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we dismiss Petitioner's direct appeal. Counsel's
motion to be relieved is granted.

APPEAL DISMISSED.1

GEATHERS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.

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